Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 225 of 723
  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I actually don't think this. I think it's possible. I think it's fair to assume that is my stance from the OP, but I'm agnostic about whether Trump actually colluded, and I think both collusion and obstruction cases won't be terribly easy to make.
    Agnostic?? Really?

    Can you say what facts, evidence, or even subjective observations you are using to keep an open mind toward the possibility of collusion?

    Giving Mueller the comparison to the GOAT tv show stems from both my aesthetic read of his investigation as well as the fact that I think he may be the GOAT for the role he's in. And I don't mean that he's the best pick to bring down the president, but that he is the one person that both sides should be able to trust to do a thorough and even handed job.
    Untrue. The bolded is especially erroneous.

    First of all, why are you not agnostic as to Meuller's investigative abilities? Why is his resume given so much credibility by you??

    Moving on, out of 17 attorneys on Mueller's team, do you know how many are registered republicans?? Zero! The only suspected republican on the team is Mueller himself. He was a registered repub when he was appointed FBI director in 2001, but his current party affiliation is curiously unknown. 10 of Mueller's attorneys have made donations to democratic campaigns.

    We've seen 50,000 texts from Page and Strozk, investigators on Mueller's team, that show an overwhelming bias against Trump.

    Where are you getting "even handed"????

    If he is exonerated, I can honestly say it will be a tough pill to swallow, but I don't have a choice
    Why would that be a tough pill to swallow? Are you saying you WANT to find out that Trump made a deal with Putin? You would actually be glad to find out that the election process was so easily corrupted? You would be unhappy if you were to find out that the election was conducted fairly, honestly, and justly??

    Do you really hate Trump so much that you would enjoy seeing America's faith in government catastrophically shaken just to see him resign?

    I don't have more information that Mueller has/will have. He's as reliable and unbiased a special prosecutor as anyone could have hoped for, and so I defer to his judgement.
    Why do you have this opinion of him? What facts, logic, or even subjective observations are you using to be so non-agnostic about Mueller's biases??
  2. #152
    Mueller's life is fairly well documented, and with little controversy. If you want to open up Mueller's credentials to speculation, but insist Trump's are air tight, well, I'm not interested in a discussion that isn't being had in good faith.

    That said, I do think there is an asymmetry here: Firing a law enforcement chief that was investigating your potential wrongdoing should trigger a special counsel. Sadly, because of partisanship, any special counsel that doesn't immediately announce Trump's vindication is going to be smeared by Trump supporters. This would likely have been the same thing for Hilary, had she won and fired an FBI chief that was investigating her, or Obama had this scenario played out-- the left would have smeared their investigators. What this means is that Trump supporters(in the scenario that is actually playing out) are left attacking the functionary of a safety switch in our government, whereby people who are not keen on Trump being president are given the position of defending the robust checks and balances that make our government so great.
  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Why would that be a tough pill to swallow? Are you saying you WANT to find out that Trump made a deal with Putin? You would actually be glad to find out that the election process was so easily corrupted? You would be unhappy if you were to find out that the election was conducted fairly, honestly, and justly??
    You're giving me the power to decide which fork in the road our future history will take-- I am not assuming that power when I say one outcome will be harder to accept.

    Also, you only focused on the collusion part. There's also the possibility of obstruction, and there is certainly a motive to obstruct even if innocent of the specific crime of collusion.

    I could flip the question on you-- I assume it would be a tough pill for you to swallow if Trump was impeached because of Russiagate. Does that mean that you'd prefer Russia to get away with colluding with candidates seeking elected office in our country and/or that a precedent is set so that any future president can obstruct justice if it suits their interests? No, it would be a tough pill for you to swallow because you don't currently think he is guilty and you'd either have to refuse to accept it or have your worldview shaken the fuck up.
  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The funny thing is that even though we can't *know* that Trump is a great businessman, all of the evidence available about all businessmen strongly suggests that Trump has among the highest probability of being one of the greatest.
    Handwaving

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    After this is all said and done, so many people are going to say they knew there was nothing on Trump.
    Nah, I think a ton of people will be in denial.

    But what do you think will happen if the outcome goes the other way?

    And while we're speculating-- I think one of the most dangerous outcomes could be Mueller serving up a nothingburger, Dems sweeping both houses and impeaching. I think the chances of this are quite slim, but ho-lee-shit that would be chaos.
  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Mueller's life is fairly well documented, and with little controversy. If you want to open up Mueller's credentials to speculation, but insist Trump's are air tight, well, I'm not interested in a discussion that isn't being had in good faith.
    It is you who are violating good faith my friend.

    If Mueller's skills as an investigator are air-tight, then how are Trump's skills as an executive open to speculation? What's different about the evidence supporting the two?

    That said, I do think there is an asymmetry here: Firing a law enforcement chief that was investigating your potential wrongdoing should trigger a special counsel.
    Firing Comey does more to suggest Trump's innocence than it does his guilt.

    If Trump were guilty, why would he fire Comey? Does he think it will stop the investigation? Does he not realize that the optics would be horrendous? What's the upside here? I simply won't believe that Trump is that stupid and reckless. Honestly the idea is insulting to intelligence.

    However, if Trump is innocent, then he KNOWS better than anyone, that any investigation would be fruitless. So he sees Comey investigating a fantasy for which there is no evidence. If you are Trump, and you are innocent, then you can say definitively that no evidence exists. So if Comey is investigating....he's either grossly incompetent, or politically biased. Either way, he has to go. Optics be damned.

    Sadly, because of partisanship, any special counsel that doesn't immediately announce Trump's vindication is going to be smeared by Trump supporters.
    Stop using words like "smeared". I've cited objective facts about Mueller's team. No one planted 50,000 texts between Page and Strozk showing powerful bias against Trump. No one is smearing Mueller because of that. I'm just asking why that doesn't compel you to be at least agnostic about the 'even-handedness' of the investigation?

    This would likely have been the same thing for Hilary, had she won and fired an FBI chief that was investigating her, or Obama had this scenario played out-- the left would have smeared their investigators.
    Comey was investigating Hillary. He was the devil then. The fact that he's now the left's favorite martyr should demonstrate to you how hypocritical and fraudulent they are.

    What this means is that Trump supporters(in the scenario that is actually playing out) are left attacking the functionary of a safety switch in our government, whereby people who are not keen on Trump being president are given the position of defending the robust checks and balances that make our government so great.
    More pollyanna junk. I'm starting to suspect that you're Monkey's alt.

    If you're just gonna trust every government and law enforcement function to not be biased or corrupted, then it's hard to have a serious debate with you. No one is attacking Mueller's integrity and certainly no one is trying to attack a fair application of due process. So just cool it with the strawmen, ok?

    Objective facts cited above appear to show a strong political bias withing the ranks of Mueller's team. It is absolutely fair and correct to ask questions about that. It's not smearing. It's not an attack. It's the JOB of a free press to ask those questions. It's a good thing irony isn't lethal. Because it's insane to me that you have a problem with a press that questions the government while simultaneously playing a violin for our "robust checks and balances".
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-26-2018 at 10:00 PM.
  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    There's also the possibility of obstruction
    Obstruction requires intent.

    If Trump is innocent, and was never trying to cover up a crime, then you're a little thin on motive.

    Furthermore.....you'll never prove intent.

    Do you really think there's a tweet or a document, or a witness that proves Trump was completely oblivious to the bad job Comey was doing, the fact that public's confidence in Comey was dog crap, and the documented recommendations of a notably non-partisan Assistant Attorney General....and that he ONLY did it to try and stop the Russia investigation....even though even a kindergartener knows that firing Comey wouldn't actually stop the investigation. Jeeeeezus.
  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I could flip the question on you-- I assume it would be a tough pill for you to swallow if Trump was impeached because of Russiagate. Does that mean that you'd prefer Russia to get away with colluding with candidates seeking elected office in our country and/or that a precedent is set so that any future president can obstruct justice if it suits their interests?
    That's such a loaded question.

    And that's not a good "flip". The two are not analogous.

    You're presenting two options A) Trump is guilty and punished or B) Trump is guilty and not punished.

    I'm presenting two options A) Trump is guilty and punished or B) Trump is not guilty and everyone is reassured that despite their best efforts a foreign power did not affect the outcome of the election.

    see the difference?
  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Handwaving
    I'm not cherry picking evidence is all.

    Nah, I think a ton of people will be in denial.
    That too.

    But what do you think will happen if the outcome goes the other way?
    I'd become afraid of gravity disappearing and the periodic table turning into a duck.

    But if it really did happen, like seriously legit happened, I would laugh so fucking hard because it would mean Trump made the biggest blunder in the history of blunders AND that CNN/Democrats/etc. threw a dart blindfolded off a windy cliff and it landed on the half-inch bullseye two miles down.
  9. #159
    At worst, Trump hired Mueller to give the media a goose to chase. At best he hired Mueller (the day after he interviewed him) to give the investigation into Obama administration crimes the kind of credibility it needs. Given that Trump has clearance on everything, his Mueller hire came with eyes wide open.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-26-2018 at 10:38 PM.
  10. #160
    I think the most absurd part of the collusion story is the scale.

    Trump and Clinton spend $80 million dollars on campaign advertising.

    The 13 russians indicted by Mueller for meddling spent $41,000
  11. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I think the most absurd part of the collusion story is the scale.
    The most absurd part of it? Now that's something to ponder.

    Could it be that the story was created by the media under the most suspicious circumstances and used evidence that was later shown fake and with some key opposition hands on it?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-26-2018 at 10:37 PM.
  12. #162
    Or could it be that there literally is no accusation of crime?

    Or could it be that the guy who is supposedly going to take down Trump was hired by Trump for the purpose of "taking down Trump"? That one's a doozy.
  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Or could it be that there literally is no accusation of crime?
    Steele dossier!!
  14. #164
    Wait, so you think Trump picked Mueller? So you think that there is no functional check on a president dismissing his investigators?

    Man, these movies really have diverged.
  15. #165
    Banana,

    Obstruction does not require guilt of the underlying crime. This must be so, because justice must be satisfied. There are lots of reasons to try to derail and investigation when you're innocent of the underlying crime.
  16. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Banana,

    Obstruction does not require guilt of the underlying crime. This must be so, because justice must be satisfied. There are lots of reasons to try to derail and investigation when you're innocent of the underlying crime.
    Did you even read what I wrote?

    Obstruction requires INTENT. I never said it requires guilt of an underlying crime.

    Intent is extraordinarily difficult to prove, even with guilt of an underlying crime. Without it, proving intent is virtually impossible.

    Furthermore, there are already enough known facts to raise 'reasonable doubt' regarding any accusations about Trump's intent.

    An obstruction charge, is a complete fantasy.

    Also, it wouldn't matter. Despite what CNN's crackpot legal team tells you, a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Period.

    And even if they're right, and a President can be charged....Mueller can't do it. He's bound by the DOJ rules governing special counsel, and those rules say that a sitting president cannot be charged.
  17. #167
    Ha, got me!

    Yeah, sometimes I just don't have it in me to suffer through your posts. You make some good points though. I guess we can argue our different narratives endlessly, or we can just see how it all plays out.
  18. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Yeah, sometimes I just don't have it in me to suffer through your posts.
    I get it. Learning is hard.

    I guess we can argue our different narratives endlessly, or we can just see how it all plays out.
    This agnosticism is a major problem in this country.

    It's absolutely not ok to launch an investigation based on a wish by stunned and outraged election losers. It's not ok to piss away millions in taxpayer dollars on a hunch with no evidence. It's not ok for an opposition party to keep demanding answers to unreasonable and unsubstantiated questions just so they can drag out an investigation into the next election season. It's not ok to allow Russia's campaign of "sowing discord" to be so successful while simultaneously expressing outrage over it.

    If you care about justice, fairness, factual accounts, fair elections, or common sense, then you should be pretty disappointed, or even outraged, at the futility and absurdity of Mueller's investigation.

    Saying "well let's see how it goes", makes you part of the problem.
  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Wait, so you think Trump picked Mueller? So you think that there is no functional check on a president dismissing his investigators?
    Trump is the boss of Mueller's boss's boss, and that Mueller was hired the day after Trump interviewed him. Given this and including the nature of the positions, it is extremely likely that Trump wanted Mueller for this position.

    Regarding the check, if you're barking up the wrong tree looking for a check then yeah you're not gonna find it. An employee of the chief executive is hardly a check on that executive. There are plenty of other functional checks on the executive. For any check to be functional, it requires evidence of crime in the first place. Which there is not in this case. If there was evidence of crime, the executive branch might be a functional check on the executive even if it's on the personnel's boss.
  20. #170
    Banana, your last post is really good, and I think it makes total sense once you accept a handful of things as fact. But that's the problem to all of this, that's why the same audience/different movies analogy is so good-- I think we disagree on some fundamental points, and all the rest of our disagreements follow.

    This means that there are a countless points which I think my position is obvious and you think it is absurd, and vice versa. We end up thinking the other is complacent in the downfall of the nation.

    It's an ugly place to be. Fascinating, but ugly.

    On the bright side, despite all of this, I don't think there is actually any real ill will between us-- certainly not from my side. That's gotta be worth something, right?
  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trump is the boss of Mueller's boss's boss, and that Mueller was hired the day after Trump interviewed him. Given this and including the nature of the positions, it is extremely likely that Trump wanted Mueller for this position.

    Regarding the check, if you're barking up the wrong tree looking for a check then yeah you're not gonna find it. An employee of the chief executive is hardly a check on that executive. There are plenty of other functional checks on the executive. For any check to be functional, it requires evidence of crime in the first place. Which there is not in this case. If there was evidence of crime, the executive branch might be a functional check on the executive even if it's on the personnel's boss.
    See above post.
  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Banana, your last post is really good,
    they all are

    and I think it makes total sense once you accept a handful of things as fact.
    You mean facts??

    But that's the problem to all of this, that's why the same audience/different movies analogy is so good-- I think we disagree on some fundamental points, and all the rest of our disagreements follow.
    Well somewhere among those different movies is "the right one". I just don't think it's that hard to find if you follow the facts and logic. For example, you seem to believe that Trump fired Comey for nefarious reasons. I wonder what facts and logic you've followed to reach that conclusion.

    Let's start with one of the foundational pillars of American justice: Innocent until proven guilty You've completely abandoned that. It's ok to bend the rules sometimes. Like, OJ did it. But you've taken it too far this time. Of many possible explanations, you've laser-focused on the worst one, and ignored all others with no evidenciary basis for doing so.

    In order to do that, you need to completely ignore the fact that there is absolutely no plausible scenario where Trump would think that he could squash the Russia investigation by firing Comey. He would surely have known that firing the FBI chief doesn't close active investigations. What logic, or fact, are you using as a basis to ignore this? I can't see how you can consider this and not reject your conclusion.

    You also seem to be touting Mueller's "even-handedness". I've asked several times now for you to provide some fact, or logic that makes you believe that. I've cited known, objective facts about members of his team that raise legitimate questions about their ability to be unbiased. Yet you seem to think that challenges to the integrity of that team represent an attempt to undermine checks and balances. in order to reach that conclusion, you have to ignore the objective fact that freedom of the press exists to ensure that those questions will be asked.

    Finding "the right movie" isnt that hard. Just ZOOM OUT, take in the whole pictures, and sort things out. If you don't have enough information, remain agnostic. But even then, you usually have enough information to rule out the implausible.

    This means that there are a countless points which I think my position is obvious and you think it is absurd, and vice versa.
    Right. That's what happens when you focus in on "points". ZOOM OUT

    We end up thinking the other is complacent in the downfall of the nation
    You've put words in my mouth here. I said you're part of a major problem. You said I'm undermining checks and balances. You don't have to zoom out very much to see "the right movie" here. Your claim of an attack on checks and balances is based on your own perceptions and interpretations. The counter argument, freedom of the press, is something that is explicitly codified into law. Please tell me you see the difference. Please tell me that you understand that challenging the partisan-ship of Mueller's team based on known information is fair and just. Lead investigators on the team exchanged 50,000 texts illustrating not just bias, but animosity, toward Trump. Surely you understand why the public is owed an explanation.

    It's an ugly place to be. Fascinating, but ugly
    Well, you might be comforted to know that zooming out doesn't help. When you see the whole picture, and see what REALLY happened (Obama-Clinton corruption) it's even uglier.

    On the bright side, despite all of this, I don't think there is actually any real ill will between us-- certainly not from my side. That's gotta be worth something, right?
    I don't have any ill will towards anyone here. I have ill will towards insanity, absurdity, ignorance, falsehood, and failings of logic. When I see these things, I call them out. I react, I believe, with commensurate intensity. I exercise restraint with you because I realize that you've simply failed to zoom out, and the positions you hold are symptoms of that. Yours is a problem of missing facts that can be rectified. When Poopadoop refutes medical results administered by a highly respected, experienced, and credentialed professional, that's not a problem that can be solved with education. That's irrational, donkey-brained, bat-shit insanity. And it requires a different response.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-27-2018 at 09:59 PM.
  23. #173
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Hypothetically, what would convince you that Trump isn't a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god? Indictment? Tax returns? IQ test result? Admission on his death bed?

    See, I get the feeling nothing would. You NEED to believe, or your world would break. And yes, there are surely symptoms of the same on the "other" side, but no, it isn't exactly the same. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and a claim that somebody, anybody, is a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god, especially while talking, acting and having the background of allegations as he does, definitely qualifies as extraordinary.

    The problem for the pro-Trump side of the debate is, that he can certainly be a successful businessman with above average intellect, and all the criticisms against him can still be valid. On the other hand, to believe all his moves are part of a grand scheme, where he's quietly puppet-mastering everything behind the facade knowing wtf he's doing, requires him to be all that. Occam's razor, folks.

    What would convince me then? Evidence. Not anecdotal, not circular logic, the hard kind. Let's hear him, just once or twice say something smart unscripted, surely he must be capable of that. Lay out his plans or opinions regarding some issue, that clearly demonstrates deep understanding. Show his tax records for the past years, if he's been steadily successful I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not think he's in it just as a publicity stunt to boost his businesses.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  24. #174
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Oh and a bit more on-topic, the investigation, no matter how it ends up, is likely not gonna convince a lot of people one way or the other. If he's found guilty of obstruction or meddling, I'm sure it's just because the deep state together with Obama and the moon nazis framed him. If nothing is found, Mueller must have been coerced by Putin or maybe even working for him.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  25. #175
    Trump definitely qualifies as extraordinary.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #176
    Is Trump doing anything to stop Russian interference in the midterms? Is he punishing Russia in any way for its interference in 2016?

    All i remember him saying last year was he asked Putin about it and Putin said he didn't do it, and Trump seemed happy with that.
  27. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Hypothetically, what would convince you that Trump isn't a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god? Indictment? Tax returns? IQ test result? Admission on his death bed?
    You're putting words in my mouth.

    See, I get the feeling nothing would. You NEED to believe, or your world would break
    You WISH this was true.

    And yes, there are surely symptoms of the same on the "other" side, but no, it isn't exactly the same.
    Right, the claims against Trump lack credibility in the form of evidence.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,
    A presidential candidate striking a clandestine arrangement with a foreign power to subvert the interests of the United States for something as trivial as hacked emials...is an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Where's the proof?

    and a claim that somebody, anybody, is a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god, especially while talking, acting and having the background of allegations as he does, definitely qualifies as extraordinary.
    Again, you're attributing statements to me that I've never made. You've chosen an ridiculous, caricaturized version of my position in order to attack it as ridiculous.

    The problem for the pro-Trump side of the debate is, that he can certainly be a successful businessman with above average intellect, and all the criticisms against him can still be valid.
    Are you high?? He can't be successful with above average intellect, AND be a "babbling idiot"

    On the other hand, to believe all his moves are part of a grand scheme, where he's quietly puppet-mastering everything behind the facade knowing wtf he's doing, requires him to be all that.
    Do you have a quote? A link? A citation? Anything to suggest that this is the belief I've expressed??

    What would convince me then? Evidence. Not anecdotal, not circular logic, the hard kind.
    Ironic and hypocritical.

    Let's hear him, just once or twice say something smart unscripted, surely he must be capable of that.
    Did you see him at CPAC?

    Lay out his plans or opinions regarding some issue, that clearly demonstrates deep understanding.
    Has he not done this? Do you really feel like you don't know Trump's position on some key policy issue??

    Show his tax records for the past years, if he's been steadily successful
    You've accused me, falsely, of being un-convincable and incapable of having a negative opinion of Trump. The same logic applies to his detractors and his tax returns. There is no plausible way where Trump could release tax returns, even perfectly legal ones, and not be shit on. Rachel Maddow can demonstrate this for you.

    I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not think he's in it just as a publicity stunt to boost his businesses.
    at least that's sensible. The notion that a man who is already a wildly successful billionaire would endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to give himself a little tax break, is insane
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2018 at 06:42 AM.
  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Is Trump doing anything to stop Russian interference in the midterms? Is he punishing Russia in any way for its interference in 2016?

    All i remember him saying last year was he asked Putin about it and Putin said he didn't do it, and Trump seemed happy with that.
    Why does he have to do anything? Congress passed tough sanctions with veto-proof majorities. All Trump had to do was sign it. Easy game.

    The left will tell you how tough Obama was on Russia after he passed sanctions and expelled 35 diplomats in response to the revelations of election meddling. But what they won't tell you is how empty and feckless that move was. We're not about to end diplomatic relations with Russia, so those 35 people will just be replaced with absolutely no assurance that they're any better than the people before.

    Trump approved arms sales to Ukraine, and has launched cruise missile attacks against Russia's ally.

    These moves aren't necessarily in response to election meddling, but it clearly shows that Trump and Putin aren't friends.

    It makes claims of collusion laughable. If Russia sought favorable treatment, they got FUCKED. If they actually sought to "sow discord", as every investigative body has concluded, then the longer this goes on, the more successful they've been.
  29. #179
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're putting words in my mouth.
    Oh I'm sorry, I thought that's ok since you keep doing it yourself. In what way does that mischaracterize your position?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You WISH this was true.
    No I don't, why would I.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    A presidential candidate striking a clandestine arrangement with a foreign power to subvert the interests of the United States for something as trivial as hacked emials...is an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Where's the proof?
    I believe that's the point of the investigation this thread is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again, you're attributing statements to me that I've never made. You've chosen an ridiculous, caricaturized version of my position in order to attack it as ridiculous.
    Which part do you think is ridiculous? That he is benevolent? That he plays "3D chess", as in manipulates his adversaries and the public by anticipating their moves and being constantly a step ahead? That he is exceptionally intelligent? That he is exceptionally successful in business? I thought those were exactly your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you high?? He can't be successful with above average intellect, AND be a "babbling idiot"
    No I am not. Are you retarded?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Do you have a quote? A link? A citation? Anything to suggest that this is the belief I've expressed??
    I'm not gonna start going through your posts to tell you what you've said. If you're saying you don't think he knows wtf he's doing, the way he's portraying himself isn't just a facade and he doesn't have a clear plan, I'll apologize and agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ironic and hypocritical.
    Ironic definitely, but I don't see any hypocrisy on my part.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Did you see him at CPAC?
    No. Was it unscripted/unrehearsed? Is that the only instance you can point at from his life of 70 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Has he not done this? Do you really feel like you don't know Trump's position on some key policy issue??
    No, he hasn't. Having a position doesn't equal deep understanding, in fact most of his positions, at least on the surface, demonstrate a lack of understanding to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You've accused me, falsely, of being un-convincable and incapable of having a negative opinion of Trump. The same logic applies to his detractors and his tax returns. There is no plausible way where Trump could release tax returns, even perfectly legal ones, and not be shit on. Rachel Maddow can demonstrate this for you.
    I was talking about what would convince me, Maddow or anyone else is not relevant. I also acknowledged right from the start, that the same symptoms can be seen on anti-Trumps. But, I went further and said these aren't 1:1 comparable, since one stance requires a more extraordinary premise to be possible. And I do hate reiterating myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    at least that's sensible. The notion that a man who is already a wildly successful billionaire would endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to give himself a little tax break, is insane
    You do see the circular logic here which presupposes that he was already swimming in money and had no incentive to get more? I don't know of many millionaires or billionaires who come to suddenly think ok that's it, I don't need to amass any more wealth, so even if he truly were a net billionaire that wouldn't mean he doesn't have an incentive to acquire more. All of the information seems to point that his campaign and his presidency have been very lucrative for him.

    https://www.economist.com/news/busin...ump-monetising

    So what do you think then, he's enduring the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to selflessly MAGA? Perfectly befitting of his character, right? Is that what you keep repeating in bed at night to be able to sleep? You see, If I turn out to be wrong about Trump I'll shrug my shoulders and go hmmh, how about that? If on the other you're wrong, maaaan. That's gonna leave a mark.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  30. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Oh I'm sorry, I thought that's ok since you keep doing it yourself. In what way does that mischaracterize your position?
    Stay tuned, we'll get to that.

    No I don't, why would I.
    So the baseless and insulting accusations that you've leveled would be credible.

    I believe that's the point of the investigation this thread is about.
    Why does the investigation exist?

    Which part do you think is ridiculous?
    Now we'll answer your first question about how you've mis-characterized my statements.

    That he is benevolent?
    That's not a word I've ever used. But sure, I'd say Trump means well.

    That he plays "3D chess", as in manipulates his adversaries and the public by anticipating their moves and being constantly a step ahead?
    More words in my mouth. You won't find any of my posts using the phrase "3D-chess". You wont' find me claiming that Trump's gaffes are really strategic plays in disguise.

    That he is exceptionally intelligent? That he is exceptionally successful in business? I thought those were exactly your position.
    Yes, and those positions are supported by facts.

    The position that you seem to have ridiculously attributed to me is one of constant, blind, unthinking Trump-apologism. You seem to be claiming that I will blindly accept any Trump policy (which is demonstrably untrue), or that I will confirmation-bias myself into believing everything he does is genius (also patently false).

    I think most of Trump's policies are good. I think Trump has extremely potent executive skills. I believe he possesses incredible intellect; assuming we define intellect correctly as simply "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". I see that some people here insist on slicing and dicing that definition into "business intelligence" and "political intelligence" and umpteen other categories just so they can cherry pick which kinds of intelligence are important. Just because I think that's a totally retarded thought process, doesn't mean that I espouse the extreme opposite thinking of worshiping Trump as some kind of infallible genius.

    No I am not. Are you retarded?
    It's one or the other. You say that someone who you admit is intelligent can be validly criticized for being unintelligent. That's either the misguided ramblings of a drug-induced stupor. Or I'm retarded for not understanding how a lifetime of demonstrated success doesn't prove that you're successful.

    I'm not gonna start going through your posts to tell you what you've said. If you're saying you don't think he knows wtf he's doing, the way he's portraying himself isn't just a facade and he doesn't have a clear plan, I'll apologize and agree.
    I think he knows wtf he is doing. I'm basing that opinion on his lifetime of business success, his incredible campaign victory, and a year+ of favorable results as this country's Chief Executive. If you would like to claim that he doesn't know wtf he's doing, feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.

    I don't think he's portraying himself disingenuously. I don't believe he's even capable of creating a facade. I believe he expresses his true opinions, and doesn't apologize for them. His statements and behavior reflect his beliefs. There are exceptions. For example, I believe he's pandering when he says he's pro-life. But that's hardly enough describe his character as "a facade". If you would like to claim that he's a complete phony, then feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.

    And I do think he has a clear plan. He wants low taxes. He wants America-first trade policies. He wants a wall. He wants tough stances on Iran and NoKo. He wants to stop terrorists. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. The guy talks into cameras and tweets constantly. Are you really saying you don't know his positions on key policy issues? If you would like to claim that he hasn't been clear on a particular issue or initiative, then feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.

    Ironic definitely, but I don't see any hypocrisy on my part.
    Really? You claimed that you are only convinced of things through evidence. Yet every one of your positions seems to eschew known facts. What do you think hypocrisy means?

    No. Was it unscripted/unrehearsed? Is that the only instance you can point at from his life of 70 years?
    Of course it's not the only instance. That's just the best example from the last few days. And alot of it was unscripted. Honestly dude, you gotta understand that CNN is NEVER EVER EVER going to come on and say "President Trump gave a very coherent and charismatic speech today". But that doesn't mean that he's actually never been coherent and charismatic.

    No, he hasn't. Having a position doesn't equal deep understanding, in fact most of his positions, at least on the surface, demonstrate a lack of understanding to me.
    More vague claims totally unsubstantiated with evidence, logic, or even an anecdote. Cmon man. What you really mean to say here is that you disagree with Trump on these issues. Step out of your own echo chamber and maybe you'll realize that people with different opinions ALSO understand issues.

    I was talking about what would convince me, Maddow or anyone else is not relevant.
    Maddow has Trump's tax return. She put it on TV. It shows that he made money, and that he paid taxes. Why are you not convinced?

    I also acknowledged right from the start, that the same symptoms can be seen on anti-Trumps. But, I went further and said these aren't 1:1 comparable, since one stance requires a more extraordinary premise to be possible. And I do hate reiterating myself.
    Jesus man...what happened to 'occam's razor'??

    A successful business man becoming successful in politics is a MORE extraordinary premise than an incompetent, corrupt, uninformed, racist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist being successful at anything??? Is that really what you're saying here? I'll ask again. ARE YOU HIGH??

    You do see the circular logic here which presupposes that he was already swimming in money and had no incentive to get more?
    You're definitely high. Do you really think that Trump doesn't have umpteen better ways to make money than by becoming President??

    I don't know of many millionaires or billionaires who come to suddenly think ok that's it, I don't need to amass any more wealth
    Are you kidding me? This happens ALL THE TIME. One obvious example is that lottery winners inevitably stop playing the lottery after they win. A more practical example is when people refuse to invest in growth because they are averse to the risk. I once worked for a small company, owned by a millionaire, who told me point blank "this is it. I'm not growing the company any more. It makes enough money for me to be happy, and I'm not taking any extra risks with expansion." He decided he'd been 'successful enough'. So it's totally plausible that a 70 year old billionaire just doesn't' see the need to invest in new real-estate, or start new ventures, in order to support his lifestyle. At some point you can't spend the incremental money you make. So the incentive is lost.

    , so even if he truly were a net billionaire that wouldn't mean he doesn't have an incentive to acquire more. All of the information seems to point that his campaign and his presidency have been very lucrative for him.
    This is pure insanity. As I said, Trump has umpteen better ways to make money. He didn't have to become president just to sell a few more hotel rooms. Jeeeeeezus.

    So what do you think then, he's enduring the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to selflessly MAGA?
    I wouldn't call it 'selfless'. I think he's a patriot. I think he believes that he has all the skills and ideas necessary to be a strong leader for the country. But like anyone who ascends to that position, personal ambition has a lot do with it too.

    Perfectly befitting of his character, right? Is that what you keep repeating in bed at night to be able to sleep? You see, If I turn out to be wrong about Trump I'll shrug my shoulders and go hmmh, how about that? If on the other you're wrong, maaaan. That's gonna leave a mark.
    Again, you seem to have marked me as some kind of out of control Trump fan-boy who recites brainwashing mantras in his sleep. I don't know where you got that idea. Yes I support Trump alot on these boards, but I'm quite sure that I've explained what evidence, facts, and logic I am using to reach those positions. If the evidence, facts, or logic changes, then so will my position.

    What I will not do is espouse a position, or even remain agnostic in a way that defies the known, objectively true facts.

    My reaction to being wrong would be similar to yours. I truly do not understand how you have possibly mistaken me as someone who would lose their minds at an unfavorable political outcome. But just so you're educated for the future....this is what those people look like:

  31. #181
    Can't be bothered to sit through his whole schtick at CPAC. Just looks like more of his old campaign demagoguery to me.




    Not sure how 'coherent' that is. Though I'll grant he's charismatic I don't see that as necessarily a virtue for a president.
  32. #182
    There's plenty of examples of him being completely incoherent if not off his rocker


  33. #183
  34. #184
  35. #185
  36. #186



    There's gotta be about 100 other examples out there, it's not like it's hard to find them.
  37. #187
    Almost forgot my favourite:



    What a fucking idiot.
  38. #188
    blooper reels are hardly definitive.
  39. #189
    Find some reels where he's speaking intelligently so we can compare.
  40. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Can't be bothered to sit through his whole schtick at CPAC.
    Right, you just like the blooper reel because that's the only thing that's allowed inside your liberal echo chamber

    Just looks like more of his old campaign demagoguery to me.
    Wrong. But I'm actually glad liberals think this. Keep thinking it.

    CPAC is for the conservative conservatives. It's the wing of the party that likes to lick Mitt Romney's balls. Trump was deemed "too controversial" for this event in 2016. Now he fucking owns these people. That should scare the boogers out of any democrat planning to run in 2020.

    Not sure how 'coherent' that is. Though I'll grant he's charismatic I don't see that as necessarily a virtue for a president.
    Here on planet earth, charisma is almost always a requisite for leadership.
  41. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Find some reels where he's speaking intelligently so we can compare.
    Why? You wont watch. You'll just say something like...

    Can't be bothered to sit through his whole schtick at CPAC.
  42. #192
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's not a word I've ever used. But sure, I'd say Trump means well.
    1/4

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    More words in my mouth. You won't find any of my posts using the phrase "3D-chess". You wont' find me claiming that Trump's gaffes are really strategic plays in disguise.
    Ok, 1/4

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yes, and those positions are supported by facts.
    3/4. So 3 of the 4 key elements I said were spot on, where is the ridiculous caricature you were talking about a second ago?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The position that you seem to have ridiculously attributed to me is one of constant, blind, unthinking Trump-apologism. You seem to be claiming that I will blindly accept any Trump policy (which is demonstrably untrue), or that I will confirmation-bias myself into believing everything he does is genius (also patently false).
    Fine, so I guess you're only 75% a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I think most of Trump's policies are good. I think Trump has extremely potent executive skills. I believe he possesses incredible intellect; assuming we define intellect correctly as simply "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". I see that some people here insist on slicing and dicing that definition into "business intelligence" and "political intelligence" and umpteen other categories just so they can cherry pick which kinds of intelligence are important. Just because I think that's a totally retarded thought process, doesn't mean that I espouse the extreme opposite thinking of worshiping Trump as some kind of infallible genius.
    This may be news to you, but there are numerous different modalities of intelligence. Emotional intelligence (inter and intrapersonal), for example, is the one that has a high correlation with business success.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's one or the other. You say that someone who you admit is intelligent can be validly criticized for being unintelligent. That's either the misguided ramblings of a drug-induced stupor. Or I'm retarded for not understanding how a lifetime of demonstrated success doesn't prove that you're successful.
    Speaking of putting words in mouths, wanna point where I say that?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I think he knows wtf he is doing. I'm basing that opinion on his lifetime of business success, his incredible campaign victory, and a year+ of favorable results as this country's Chief Executive. If you would like to claim that he doesn't know wtf he's doing, feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.
    Everything he says and how he acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I don't think he's portraying himself disingenuously. I don't believe he's even capable of creating a facade. I believe he expresses his true opinions, and doesn't apologize for them. His statements and behavior reflect his beliefs. There are exceptions. For example, I believe he's pandering when he says he's pro-life. But that's hardly enough describe his character as "a facade". If you would like to claim that he's a complete phony, then feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.
    I agree, including the exceptions. Exceptions though kinda nullify the rule, not make it. I don't think he's knowingly dumbing down his vocabulary or presenting himself as goofy or aloof, I trust that to be largely his real persona. He's probably no more phony than most career politicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Really? You claimed that you are only convinced of things through evidence. Yet every one of your positions seems to eschew known facts. What do you think hypocrisy means?
    This is why it's so frustrating talking to you. You do 2 things in every conversation, assume what opinions everyone else holds, and spit your paci out of the pram complaining how others do that to you. But please, go ahead, what are my positions?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Of course it's not the only instance. That's just the best example from the last few days. And alot of it was unscripted. Honestly dude, you gotta understand that CNN is NEVER EVER EVER going to come on and say "President Trump gave a very coherent and charismatic speech today". But that doesn't mean that he's actually never been coherent and charismatic.
    I'm not looking for CNN's opinion on what is charismatic or coherent, I'm asking you where he has said something that shows he's intelligent, where it's not a speech written by someone else. For the most successful businessman who's been winning in everything for decades, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    More vague claims totally unsubstantiated with evidence, logic, or even an anecdote. Cmon man. What you really mean to say here is that you disagree with Trump on these issues. Step out of your own echo chamber and maybe you'll realize that people with different opinions ALSO understand issues.
    You asked if I haven't seen convincing policy plans from him, which I haven't. Now you want me to show proof for my opinions? I do disagree with him with many of his policies, but that's beside the point. You forget or do not realize that most of his policies or political stances have zero effect on me on a practical level. I'm not invested in them, or against them. I'm not the one shitting my pants about them coming for my guns or my job or stealing my taxes. If "holy shit, that stupid douche is actually being voted in by a bunch of stupid douches, lol they're so screwed" is an echo chamber, then yeah, I guess I'm in it. Or could be that you're in one.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Maddow has Trump's tax return. She put it on TV. It shows that he made money, and that he paid taxes. Why are you not convinced?
    Maddow released his form 1040 (his personal taxes, nothing to do with his companies) from 2005. That alone does not tell anything, why on earth should I be convinced?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Jesus man...what happened to 'occam's razor'??

    A successful business man becoming successful in politics is a MORE extraordinary premise than an incompetent, corrupt, uninformed, racist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist being successful at anything??? Is that really what you're saying here? I'll ask again. ARE YOU HIGH??
    No I'm not, and I'll ask you again, are you retarded?

    Sociopathic tendencies are vastly over-represented in executive positions in business, there would be nothing extraordinary about that. Likely his largest business successes have been being born into a rich family and carrying on the family real estate business. Being elected the POTUS carries no formal requirements, he doesn't need to have a certain level of education or experience, doesn't need to pass an entrance exam or aptitude test, all he needs to do is be charismatic and strike the right chords in a large enough part of the population. He managed to do that largely due to timing, since a lot of poor white folks were disenchanted due to the 2008 recession, manufacturing jobs being either eliminated or outsourced, a black guy being the president, LGBTQetc and women's rights being front and center in the discourse. The seeds of what happened were really sown by the tea party movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're definitely high. Do you really think that Trump doesn't have umpteen better ways to make money than by becoming President??
    Are you really that stupid? Who wouldn't want to be the one who decides the rules of the game? He can both leverage massively favorable foreign deals in his position and directly cut his own taxes. Like wtf would be the umpteen better ways? You didn't read the Economist article I linked, did you?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you kidding me? This happens ALL THE TIME. One obvious example is that lottery winners inevitably stop playing the lottery after they win. A more practical example is when people refuse to invest in growth because they are averse to the risk. I once worked for a small company, owned by a millionaire, who told me point blank "this is it. I'm not growing the company any more. It makes enough money for me to be happy, and I'm not taking any extra risks with expansion." He decided he'd been 'successful enough'. So it's totally plausible that a 70 year old billionaire just doesn't' see the need to invest in new real-estate, or start new ventures, in order to support his lifestyle. At some point you can't spend the incremental money you make. So the incentive is lost.
    Lottery winners aren't businessmen most of the time, I'd wager. I would have used maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as examples, but the undeniable point is, that the vast majority of businesses never decide they have enough money. Your claim was that because he's successful he wouldn't have incentive to gain more, which is demonstrably and obviously utter rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is pure insanity. As I said, Trump has umpteen better ways to make money. He didn't have to become president just to sell a few more hotel rooms. Jeeeeeezus.
    There there, wipe the foam off your cheeks so we can continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I wouldn't call it 'selfless'. I think he's a patriot. I think he believes that he has all the skills and ideas necessary to be a strong leader for the country. But like anyone who ascends to that position, personal ambition has a lot do with it too.
    I would characterize him as the exact opposite of selfless.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again, you seem to have marked me as some kind of out of control Trump fan-boy who recites brainwashing mantras in his sleep. I don't know where you got that idea. Yes I support Trump alot on these boards, but I'm quite sure that I've explained what evidence, facts, and logic I am using to reach those positions. If the evidence, facts, or logic changes, then so will my position.
    But that's the thing, most of what I've seen have been anecdotal evidence, questionable facts and circular logic, which require the viewer to be watching the same movie for them to make sense. What is abundantly clear though, is that you have zero intention or will to learn anything or challenge your base beliefs in any way, since all critique or opposing views just end up being spat on and ridiculed. If I were looking for that I'd go to places where stupid people go.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    My reaction to being wrong would be similar to yours.
    I have a hard time believing that just based on the amount of caps in all of your posts on these issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    But just so you're educated for the future....this is what those people look like:
    Yeah it'd be much better if they looked like this:



    On a serious note about your photo, what's wrong with them? Hell I wish there was an issue that got young people here out on the streets, at least they give a shit.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  43. #193
    This is like two people arguing about which are better... dogs or cats.

    One argues that cats are better, because dogs are disgusting. They eat their own shit and bark at their own farts. The other argues that despite these faults, dogs are better because they are practical and good companions, while cats are useless and aloof.

    Of course, dogs are better and anyone who argues for cats is a cunt. But as far as the cat cunt is concerned, he or she (usually she) is correct, because it's subjective and you're always right when you're talking about your own fucking opinion.

    You know what's wrong with this site these days? banana is owning everyone he argues with. People either get butthurt, or refuse to acknowledge when he's right, which is usually (but not always).

    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Fine, so I guess you're only 75% a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist.
    This is desperate, petty, and is everything that's wrong with political debate these days. If you acknowledge Trump's success, you're an apologist. We're back to "literally Hitler". Why does anyone need to apologise for Trump? Because he's goofy and he doesn't have quite the grasp of language that spoon has?

    If he ends up interning a load of foreigners and gassing them, then yeah people will need to start apologising for supporting him. Until then, he's just unorthadox. That's not a crime.

    On a serious note about your photo, what's wrong with them? Hell I wish there was an issue that got young people here out on the streets, at least they give a shit.
    Nothing, if they are protesting against living in a democracy. Fair play to them if they're prepared to get off their asses and fight for a system in which they can pick and choose who their president is regardless of the outcome of an election.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #194
    I just want to be clear I'm not calling anyone in this thread a cunt.

    Not unless you like cats more than dogs.

    That wasn't a thinly veiled "left vs right" analogy, not directly. I just genuinely think there's something wrong with people who prefer cats to dogs.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Why? You wont watch. You'll just say something like...
    No, actually I'd say "Holy shit he actually made sense for once."

    But you won't show it 'cause it doesn't exist. The clips from CPAC or (insert any other time he's gone off prompter) are all the same repeated catch phrases from his campaign. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not intelligent discourse, it's rabble rousing.
  46. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    where is the ridiculous caricature you were talking about a second ago?
    I explained that in vivid detail. If you're going to choose to ignore certain information that doesn't fit your argument....well then I can see why you're wrong so much.

    Fine, so I guess you're only 75% a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist.
    A completely baseless and incendiary accusation. Does that make you feel better to say that? Do you feel like a big boy now?

    This may be news to you, but there are numerous different modalities of intelligence. Emotional intelligence (inter and intrapersonal), for example, is the one that has a high correlation with business success.
    It's not news to me. What also shouldn't be news is that i flat out refuse to go down that rabbit hole. I'm defining intelligence as "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". In that regard, Trump has an extremely high aptitude. There's no plausible way he could be where he is, if he didn't possess an extremely high level of intelligence.

    Furthermore, he can push a button on his desk and, within seconds, have a dozen experts on any subject ready to educate him on anything he could ever need or want to know. In that context, he's the smartest person on the planet.

    Speaking of putting words in mouths, wanna point where I say that?
    Right here

    The problem for the pro-Trump side of the debate is, that he can certainly be a successful businessman with above average intellect, and all the criticisms against him can still be valid.
    See

    Everything he says and how he acts.
    That's a pathetic dodge. You're accusing an extraordinarily successful person who currently holds the highest office on earth of "not knowing what he's doing". When asked to substantiate that argument in even the slightest way, your answer is "duh, everything". Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation.

    This is why it's so frustrating talking to you. You do 2 things in every conversation, assume what opinions everyone else holds, and spit your paci out of the pram complaining how others do that to you.
    I don't believe I've made any assumptions. I've responded to your own words in explicit detail.

    But please, go ahead, what are my positions?
    You summed it up pretty well in the last paragraph of post #173. You believe that Trump is incompetent as a politician, lacks understanding of the issues, communicates poorly, and that his communication skills demonstrate below average cognition. You believe all this despite his status as the living icon of business success and his rising to a political office that's only ever been held by 45 men in the entirety of history. And when challenged on WHY you think this...your response thus far has been "duh everything". And you've defended this position by denigrating and disparaging any other opposing view as symptomatic of being a blind, unthinking, Trump-apologist.

    I'm not looking for CNN's opinion on what is charismatic or coherent, I'm asking you where he has said something that shows he's intelligent, where it's not a speech written by someone else. For the most successful businessman who's been winning in everything for decades, it shouldn't be that hard, right?
    Again, his CPAC speech from just this week is a prime example of exactly what you're looking for. It's been mentioned a half dozen times now, and you're still acting like the question hasn't been answered.

    You asked if I haven't seen convincing policy plans from him, which I haven't.
    Incorrect. You just disagree with his policy plans, so you find them unconvincing. This is symptomatic of someone who is stuck in an echo chamber.

    Now you want me to show proof for my opinions? I do disagree with him with many of his policies, but that's beside the point
    No, that pretty much IS your point. And if you were just honest about that, it would be harder to criticize you. Instead you've decided that anyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking, blind, Trump fan-boy.

    If "holy shit, that stupid douche is actually being voted in by a bunch of stupid douches, lol they're so screwed" is an echo chamber, then yeah, I guess I'm in it.
    The fact that your thinking starts with the premise that he's "a stupid douche" pretty much PROVES the existence of your echo chamber.

    Maddow released his form 1040 (his personal taxes, nothing to do with his companies) from 2005. That alone does not tell anything, why on earth should I be convinced?
    You're not even paying attention. You just hear what you want to hear.

    Two pages of a tax return should not convince you of much. Though, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it's pretty compelling. More importantly though, the reaction to those two pages should convince you that there is absolutely ZERO upside for Trump to release his tax return. He has absolutely nothing to gain. So criticizing Trump for not releasing his returns, is a demonstration of ignorance.

    Sociopathic tendencies are vastly over-represented in executive positions in business, there would be nothing extraordinary about that.
    So why are we talking about it? It feels like you're equating sociopathy with corruption, ignorance, racism, sexism, and all that other stuff I listed. That's just wrong.

    Likely his largest business successes have been being born into a rich family and carrying on the family real estate business.
    Dude.....even the most generous estimates of Trump's 'head start' are no higher than $200 million. He's currently worth 20x to 50x that. The rate of return he would have to earn in order to achieve even the most conservative estimates of his net worth is absolutely phenomenal. Your claim is absurd. The math simply doesn't work.

    this is yet another example of you discounting Trump's abilities, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, just to feed your own echo chamber. Snap out of it!!

    Being elected the POTUS carries no formal requirements, he doesn't need to have a certain level of education or experience, doesn't need to pass an entrance exam or aptitude test,
    Are you kidding me?? What do you call having every media outlet in the known universe crawl up your ass for a year and half during a presidential campaign?? YOu make it sound like he just filled out a form and kept his fingers crossed.

    all he needs to do is be charismatic and strike the right chords in a large enough part of the population. He managed to do that largely due to timing
    Huh? You do realize that 17 other people ran at the exact same time, on the exact same platform of lowering taxes, fixing healthcare, and killing terrorists. Right?

    I'll cut you some slack on this next one because you're stuck way out there in some shit-hole country that doesn't matter. So maybe you're not keeping your finger on the pulse of american culture. I'm just gonna fix your post here.....
    since a lot of poor white folks overtaxed and socially vilified middle class citizens were disenchanted due to the 2008 recession, manufacturing jobs being either eliminated or outsourced, a black guy being the president, LGBTQetc and women's rights being front and center in the discourse Progressive policies that stifled the economy and divided our culture.
    There, that's better.

    Are you really that stupid? Who wouldn't want to be the one who decides the rules of the game?
    because he was doing just fine, better even, with the old rules. There's maybe a .0000000367% chance I could buy into this line of thinking if Trump was like....45 years old. But he's not. He's not going to live very long after he's President. Why try and fuck with the game if you're never going to get to play again??

    Lottery winners aren't businessmen most of the time, I'd wager. I would have used maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as examples, but the undeniable point is, that the vast majority of businesses never decide they have enough money. Your claim was that because he's successful he wouldn't have incentive to gain more, which is demonstrably and obviously utter rubbish.
    No, my claim was that his personal motivation is diminished by the fact that he has no practical way to enjoy further gains other than the satisfaction of the achievement itself. If someone is extraordinarily driven, and reaches that point, they diversify and seek new challenges in other arenas.....like politics.

    There there, wipe the foam off your cheeks so we can continue.
    So you're not denying that your position is that Trump went to all the trouble, stress, and triple-digit million dollar expense just so he could sell hotel rooms to secret service agents and foreign entourages.

    I would characterize him as the exact opposite of selfless.
    How many charitable foundations are named after you Sir?

    But that's the thing, most of what I've seen have been anecdotal evidence, questionable facts and circular logic, which require the viewer to be watching the same movie for them to make sense.
    I feel like I've cited extensive facts that are NOT questionable or anecdotal. If you dont' understand them, just ask, and I'll be glad to clarify.

    What is abundantly clear though, is that you have zero intention or will to learn anything or challenge your base beliefs in any way, since all critique or opposing views just end up being spat on and ridiculed.
    No, this is an assumption your making based on a majority of instances. I've explained many times now how I formulate my positions, and whenever I've stated a position, I've been extremely verbose in explaining the facts and logic that support that position. Challenges to those facts come in the form of preachy agnosticism, petty ridicule, and shrugs of "duh...everything"

    If I were looking for that I'd go to places where stupid people go.
    Like Finland?

    I have a hard time believing that just based on the amount of caps in all of your posts on these issues.
    Well, if it ever comes out that Trump is not really rich, not really successful, and not really smart, I guess you'll see. Until then you can believe what you want. In the meantime, I'll hang out here in reality where the man OBVIOUSLY has his shit together.

    Yeah it'd be much better if they looked like this:
    Probably a doctored photo, possibly a joke in poor taste, or maybe even democrats in disguise. Even if it is authentic, I don't believe this photo represents even a slim minority of Trump supporters. However, the photo that I posted most definitely represents a large majority of Trump detractors.

    On a serious note about your photo, what's wrong with them?
    They're fraudulent. Either that, or ignorant. Possibly both. I say that because the word "racist" is something they are co-opting for shock value and to morally blackmail the other side. I don't believe that any of Trump's policies seek to denigrate or oppress any ethnic group. The examples that have been cited require some logical somersaults. Like the travel-pause that singled out a half dozen notably dangerous countries. To conclude a racist motivation here, you have to do logical somersaults to convince yourself that something that only affects <10% of the muslim population is an attack on ALL muslims. You'd have to ignore the national security concerns cited by virtually every international intelligence agency at our disposal. And you'd have to WANT to believe that Trump is just an evil, islam-hating, racist, xenophobic piece of shit.

    I would never deny someone's right to protest. However, the folks in the picture I posted are not protesting. They're simply expressing rage with irrational behavior. It's not the same thing.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2018 at 03:55 PM.
  47. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is like two people arguing about which are better... dogs or cats.
    Failed analogy.

    ALL pet owners are certifiably insane.
  48. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The clips from CPAC or (insert any other time he's gone off prompter) are all the same repeated catch phrases from his campaign.
    Well when he was on the campaign trail, repeating those catch phrases, CPAC wanted nothing to do with him. Now he literally OWNS that crowd.

    He must be doing more than repeating catch phrases.
  49. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You know what's wrong with this site these days? banana is owning everyone he argues with.
    How do I make this my signature?
  50. #200
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is desperate, petty, and is everything that's wrong with political debate these days.
    It was also a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nothing, if they are protesting against living in a democracy. Fair play to them if they're prepared to get off their asses and fight for a system in which they can pick and choose who their president is regardless of the outcome of an election.
    You're not seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protest? 26.3% of Americans voted for Trump, should that mean for 4 years no one who disagrees with him should be allowed to say anything?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  51. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    It was also a joke.
    No it wasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    You're not seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protest? 26.3% of Americans voted for Trump, should that mean for 4 years no one who disagrees with him should be allowed to say anything?
    No, he's not saying that at all. I can't fathom how you got that out of what Ong said.

    Yet another symptom of Trump-derangement syndrome. Anything your debate opponent says doesn't get into your ears until it's gone through the "fascist-filter".

    Boost had the same problem recently when he declared that a free press undermines justice.
  52. #202
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No it wasn't.


    No, he's not saying that at all. I can't fathom how you got that out of what Ong said.

    Yet another symptom of Trump-derangement syndrome. Anything your debate opponent says doesn't get into your ears until it's gone through the "fascist-filter".

    Boost had the same problem recently when he declared that a free press undermines justice.
    Why even have discussions when you obviously know best what everyone thinks and means?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  53. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Why even have discussions when you obviously know best what everyone thinks and means?
    Well I think it was obvious what Ong meant. You construed it into something else entirely. If I'm wrong, feel free to explain yourself. Shitting on me doesn't make your position any more clear.
  54. #204
    Still waiting for that video of Trump waxing eloquent on the issues of the day.
  55. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Still waiting for that video of Trump waxing eloquent on the issues of the day.
    Just type "Trump" "CPAC" "2018" into your google machine
  56. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    they all are


    You mean facts??


    Well somewhere among those different movies is "the right one". I just don't think it's that hard to find if you follow the facts and logic. For example, you seem to believe that Trump fired Comey for nefarious reasons. I wonder what facts and logic you've followed to reach that conclusion.

    Let's start with one of the foundational pillars of American justice: Innocent until proven guilty You've completely abandoned that. It's ok to bend the rules sometimes. Like, OJ did it. But you've taken it too far this time. Of many possible explanations, you've laser-focused on the worst one, and ignored all others with no evidenciary basis for doing so.

    In order to do that, you need to completely ignore the fact that there is absolutely no plausible scenario where Trump would think that he could squash the Russia investigation by firing Comey. He would surely have known that firing the FBI chief doesn't close active investigations. What logic, or fact, are you using as a basis to ignore this? I can't see how you can consider this and not reject your conclusion.

    You also seem to be touting Mueller's "even-handedness". I've asked several times now for you to provide some fact, or logic that makes you believe that. I've cited known, objective facts about members of his team that raise legitimate questions about their ability to be unbiased. Yet you seem to think that challenges to the integrity of that team represent an attempt to undermine checks and balances. in order to reach that conclusion, you have to ignore the objective fact that freedom of the press exists to ensure that those questions will be asked.

    Finding "the right movie" isnt that hard. Just ZOOM OUT, take in the whole pictures, and sort things out. If you don't have enough information, remain agnostic. But even then, you usually have enough information to rule out the implausible.


    Right. That's what happens when you focus in on "points". ZOOM OUT


    You've put words in my mouth here. I said you're part of a major problem. You said I'm undermining checks and balances. You don't have to zoom out very much to see "the right movie" here. Your claim of an attack on checks and balances is based on your own perceptions and interpretations. The counter argument, freedom of the press, is something that is explicitly codified into law. Please tell me you see the difference. Please tell me that you understand that challenging the partisan-ship of Mueller's team based on known information is fair and just. Lead investigators on the team exchanged 50,000 texts illustrating not just bias, but animosity, toward Trump. Surely you understand why the public is owed an explanation.


    Well, you might be comforted to know that zooming out doesn't help. When you see the whole picture, and see what REALLY happened (Obama-Clinton corruption) it's even uglier.


    I don't have any ill will towards anyone here. I have ill will towards insanity, absurdity, ignorance, falsehood, and failings of logic. When I see these things, I call them out. I react, I believe, with commensurate intensity. I exercise restraint with you because I realize that you've simply failed to zoom out, and the positions you hold are symptoms of that. Yours is a problem of missing facts that can be rectified. When Poopadoop refutes medical results administered by a highly respected, experienced, and credentialed professional, that's not a problem that can be solved with education. That's irrational, donkey-brained, bat-shit insanity. And it requires a different response.
    Gotta be honest, I read exactly none of the middle. But there's good reason for it. I feel confident that I can make the same arguments back in your direction, and I'm doing so in good faith, as I believe you are. That's the point of my last post. Of course each one of us believes the other is the one being deluded. I know you think your arguments are compelling, and it's frustrating when others just don't get it-- but look, I feel the same with regards to the arguments I present to you.

    To be clear, I'm not saying I cannot be convinced, it's just that neither of us is convincing the other on certain topics, and it's deleterious to discussions about other, possibly more interesting and productive discussions.

    The cool thing is, I know we do agree on some stuff, and I think that should maybe be more of the focus of our exchanges. I think there's a lot of pressure out there (from all sides) to demonize those who disagree with you-- but once you demonize those who disagree with you, you've eliminated any chance of working productively together on things you agree on.
  57. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Just type "Trump" "CPAC" "2018" into your google machine
    I did and I posted the video it showed of him getting the crowd to chant 'lock her up'

    Now I'd like to see you post anything up to 5 minutes long of him speaking intelligently on the issues.

    I'm not going to watch a 45 minute video in the hope that there's a few coherent sentences in there somewhere - i assume there are. What I want to see (assuming you're actually interested in convincing me or anyone else) is something watchable that won't take up an hour of my time that shows him being erudite about anything to do with government, preferably since he became president.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 02-28-2018 at 05:05 PM.
  58. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    Boost had the same problem recently when he declared that a free press undermines justice.
    lolwaitwat? Source?
  59. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    You're not seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protest? 26.3% of Americans voted for Trump, should that mean for 4 years no one who disagrees with him should be allowed to say anything?
    Something something putting words into my mouth.

    Sure they can protest. It's just that by doing so, waving around banners that say "not my President", they are protesting democracy. You can sugar coat that all you like, but it's the cold hard truth. These people don't even acknowledge it themselves, they somehow convince themselves they are pro-democracy in the process of being undemocratic. It's insanity in protest form.

    They absolutely have the right to do this. Just don't expect me to say "fair play", unless that is they understand what they're protesting. Which they don't. They think they're protesting against racism? They're not, what they're really doing is playing into the hands of actual racists who exploit minorities in the form of identity politics to manipulate people like those we see protesting against Trump winning an election.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Something something putting words into my mouth.

    Sure they can protest. It's just that by doing so, waving around banners that say "not my President", they are protesting democracy. You can sugar coat that all you like, but it's the cold hard truth. These people don't even acknowledge it themselves, they somehow convince themselves they are pro-democracy in the process of being undemocratic. It's insanity in protest form.

    They absolutely have the right to do this. Just don't expect me to say "fair play", unless that is they understand what they're protesting. Which they don't. They think they're protesting against racism? They're not, what they're really doing is playing into the hands of actual racists who exploit minorities in the form of identity politics to manipulate people like those we see protesting against Trump winning an election.

    But none of these people are calling for him to be removed from office just because they didn't vote for him. They're saying 'not my president' because they strongly disagree with whatever he represents to them. I can say Theresa May is not my PM and that doesn't mean I want to return to the monarchy.
  61. #211
    I can say Theresa May isn't my PM, and that's fine. But if I march on Downing Street making this point loud and clear, I am quite literally sticking two fingers up to democracy, and everyone who voted for May.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 02-28-2018 at 05:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I can say Theresa May isn't my PM, and that's fine. But if I march on Downing Street making this point loud and clear, I am quite literally sticking two fingers up to democracy, and everyone who voted for May.
    Uh no you're not. You're trying to apply a literal interpretation of the phrase as if that were how it was intended. If that were true, every anarchist in the world would be saying 'X is not my Y'.

    Would you prefer they said ' I really really really don't like this guy'? as their slogan. Cause that's how everyone interprets 'not my president' - you're the only one arguing it's anti-democracy.
  63. #213
    I don't give a flying fuck what they say. If they don't like him, fine.

    My problem is with their abuse of "protest". To protest in this manner is to exercise a civil right. Why do we protest in this manner? Because we want to make the government take notice, we want CHANGE. If these people are not protesting for CHANGE, then what the fuck are they doing? Having a mass tantrum?

    If they are not demanding change, then this protest is a waste of their time, the cops' time, it's an inconvenience to locals, it's an abuse of a civil liberty. Having a mass moan isn't the same as an actual protest.

    If this is a real protest, if this isn't mass petulence, then what is it? What are they protesting?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #214
    Sometimes people protest not because they want change, but because they want someone's head cut off for drawing an offensive cartoon. People die in the riots that ensue around the world.

    These people in the protest above, they might not quite be baying for blood, but they're drifting dangerously close.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #215
    Well first you said they were protesting democracy. Now you're saying they're wasting their time. Not the same force behind those criticisms.

    And yea, so what if they're wasting their time? It's their time and their right to protest. Do you have to agree with the utility of every protest yourself to appreciate that people have that right?
  66. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    These people in the protest above, they might not quite be baying for blood, but they're drifting dangerously close.
    Bullshit.

    None of them are inciting violence afaik (at least not in that picture). If they were holding up signs saying 'kill Trump' or 'kill republicans' you might have a point. But they're not and so you don't. You just don't like them 'cause they're not on your team.
  67. #217
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I explained that in vivid detail. If you're going to choose to ignore certain information that doesn't fit your argument....well then I can see why you're wrong so much.
    Yes, 1 of the 4 points was maybe slightly off. That does not a ridiculous caricature make. In yours or Trump's case it'd make for an exceptionally accurate comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    A completely baseless and incendiary accusation. Does that make you feel better to say that? Do you feel like a big boy now?
    It was your interpretation that the definition describes someone who is a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist. You agreed with 3 out of the 4 points that made that definition. Maybe you shouldn't get so butthurt over making logical observations of your words. And yes, this also is a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not news to me. What also shouldn't be news is that i flat out refuse to go down that rabbit hole. I'm defining intelligence as "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". In that regard, Trump has an extremely high aptitude. There's no plausible way he could be where he is, if he didn't possess an extremely high level of intelligence.
    I've noticed you have trouble with word definitions every time it's convenient to your case.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Furthermore, he can push a button on his desk and, within seconds, have a dozen experts on any subject ready to educate him on anything he could ever need or want to know. In that context, he's the smartest person on the planet.
    Have you looked at his cabinet? (a joke)
    Wouldn't anyone then be the smartest in that position? (not a joke)

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You summed it up pretty well in the last paragraph of post #173. You believe that Trump is incompetent as a politician, lacks understanding of the issues, communicates poorly, and that his communication skills demonstrate below average cognition. You believe all this despite his status as the living icon of business success and his rising to a political office that's only ever been held by 45 men in the entirety of history. And when challenged on WHY you think this...your response thus far has been "duh everything". And you've defended this position by denigrating and disparaging any other opposing view as symptomatic of being a blind, unthinking, Trump-apologist.
    No, I didn't. I listed things that might convince me on those issues, as of now I'm undecided as should any sane person be based on the available evidence, which is basically all sketchy, anecdotal or hearsay. I have no idea if he's competent as a politician, but most things he say and how he acts don't instill confidence in me. He's shown a lack of understanding over numerous issues. He communicates poorly, unless you're using elementary school grading. He certainly has nailed slogans and branding, as well as having a confident presence, but he has a lot to improve on clarity and diplomatic skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again, his CPAC speech from just this week is a prime example of exactly what you're looking for. It's been mentioned a half dozen times now, and you're still acting like the question hasn't been answered.
    Looks to me like it could be any of his campaign rallies. If you consider rambling enthusiastically about his favorite issues signs of intelligence, maybe we should just drop this. I didn't mean by "intelligent" your definition of "being able to acquire skills and knowledge", a hamster would qualify those.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, that pretty much IS your point. And if you were just honest about that, it would be harder to criticize you. Instead you've decided that anyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking, blind, Trump fan-boy.
    My point was that people supporting Trump are more deeply invested in their beliefs, they have more to lose by being proven wrong than those who are against him. Related to those two I consider myself to be in a 3rd group, the outside observers, who have far less skin in the game. You're insistence to not budging one inch and mustering all your energy to ridicule anyone who might in any way question the foundations your beliefs are built on top of IMO demonstrates I'm correct. This is not about my opinions, and my point doesn't change one bit regardless of what they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The fact that your thinking starts with the premise that he's "a stupid douche" pretty much PROVES the existence of your echo chamber.
    You must think labeling all differing opinions as echo chamber talk must feel convincing to you. It's rare to see that kind of pathos supporting anyone, don't you at all think it's peculiar you're so offended if someone ridicules your supreme leader? I sort of admire the passion though, I can't fathom ever supporting any political figure so strongly, I feel a vast majority of them are either corrupt, stupid douches or both, especially the ones who clearly got to their position just by being famous, such as ex-athletes, actors etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Two pages of a tax return should not convince you of much.
    Ikr

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Dude.....even the most generous estimates of Trump's 'head start' are no higher than $200 million. He's currently worth 20x to 50x that. The rate of return he would have to earn in order to achieve even the most conservative estimates of his net worth is absolutely phenomenal. Your claim is absurd. The math simply doesn't work.
    Donald Trump's self-described net worth was $200 million in 1982. If he invested that money in the S&P 500, he'd be worth about $8.3 billion today. He claims his net worth is $8.7 billion.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    this is yet another example of you discounting Trump's abilities, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, just to feed your own echo chamber. Snap out of it!!
    We have a very different understanding of irrefutable evidence, but none of this is about my opinion, or me discounting his abilities. All of this is just demonstrating your core beliefs about him aren't as airtight as you make it sound, and you seem to be changing the subject or ignoring it every time it happens. I don't claim he's not a successful businessman, I just don't have the rock hard unquestioning faith that he is as you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you kidding me?? What do you call having every media outlet in the known universe crawl up your ass for a year and half during a presidential campaign?? YOu make it sound like he just filled out a form and kept his fingers crossed.
    What I don't call it is anything resembling an aptitude test, or an exam on political history, foreign and domestic policy or economics. I would rather call it a publicity tour riling up people with hate towards his opposition, the media and promises to bring back obsolete jobs and values.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    because he was doing just fine, better even, with the old rules. There's maybe a .0000000367% chance I could buy into this line of thinking if Trump was like....45 years old. But he's not. He's not going to live very long after he's President. Why try and fuck with the game if you're never going to get to play again??
    You mean you think he was doing just fine, you don't know that. You know absolutely nothing about his financial situation, his motivations, his aspirations, whether he actually wanted to be the president, does he see himself as aging and about to retire, none of that. You just have a base assumption that he's filthy rich, and everything else follows. And don't get me wrong, you absolutely have the right to do that, and I'm not really even criticizing you, just observing and being mildly amused.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, my claim was that his personal motivation is diminished by the fact that he has no practical way to enjoy further gains other than the satisfaction of the achievement itself. If someone is extraordinarily driven, and reaches that point, they diversify and seek new challenges in other arenas.....like politics.
    That's possible, but it's also possible that he either isn't doing that well financially, or that he definitely still has motivation to gain more wealth and might see running or being the POTUS as also a lucrative deal. And again, these are not my opinions, we possibly will never find out what the real deal is, but only one of us is 100% convinced at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So you're not denying that your position is that Trump went to all the trouble, stress, and triple-digit million dollar expense just so he could sell hotel rooms to secret service agents and foreign entourages.
    I am. The only denying that's going on is you with even the possibility of that being within the realm of possibilities. If you want my opinion (you should ask rather than put words in my mouth if you do), I'd say there at least a low 2-digit chance that the prospect might have had some influence on his decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How many charitable foundations are named after you Sir?
    Roughly the same amount as DJ:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...dation-n822636

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I feel like I've cited extensive facts that are NOT questionable or anecdotal. If you dont' understand them, just ask, and I'll be glad to clarify.
    Well feelings are sadly not what I'm looking for. I'll be sure to understand if there's something I don't understand, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Well, if it ever comes out that Trump is not really rich, not really successful, and not really smart, I guess you'll see. Until then you can believe what you want. In the meantime, I'll hang out here in reality where the man OBVIOUSLY has his shit together.
    Good luck with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Probably a doctored photo, possibly a joke in poor taste, or maybe even democrats in disguise. Even if it is authentic, I don't believe this photo represents even a slim minority of Trump supporters. However, the photo that I posted most definitely represents a large majority of Trump detractors.
    Lol. I had no problem believing people in both the photos were genuine. Isn't it fascinating to you how you without hesitation completely dismiss one of them while having no qualms about the other? Aren't you curious what makes you react like that to two random photos off the net?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    They're fraudulent. Either that, or ignorant. Possibly both. I say that because the word "racist" is something they are co-opting for shock value and to morally blackmail the other side. I don't believe that any of Trump's policies seek to denigrate or oppress any ethnic group. The examples that have been cited require some logical somersaults. Like the travel-pause that singled out a half dozen notably dangerous countries. To conclude a racist motivation here, you have to do logical somersaults to convince yourself that something that only affects <10% of the muslim population is an attack on ALL muslims. You'd have to ignore the national security concerns cited by virtually every international intelligence agency at our disposal. And you'd have to WANT to believe that Trump is just an evil, islam-hating, racist, xenophobic piece of shit.
    Nowadays being racist doesn't just mean you're KKK, it doesn't require hatred or ill will towards other races. It just means preferential treatment, treating a person differently just based on their skin color. Remember when you joined this board we had this discussion, and at the end you conceded that fine, maybe you are racist if that's the definition? Yeah, by that same metric I don't see it such a leap to call him racist. Not KKK level, perhaps more like grumpy grandpa level. Either way, I find it far far less likely that he is the least racist person anyone's ever met.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I would never deny someone's right to protest. However, the folks in the picture I posted are not protesting. They're simply expressing rage with irrational behavior. It's not the same thing.
    Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're not protesting.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  68. #218
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Something something putting words into my mouth.
    Nah, I was quite literally asking a question, making sure I'm understanding you correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure they can protest. It's just that by doing so, waving around banners that say "not my President", they are protesting democracy. You can sugar coat that all you like, but it's the cold hard truth. These people don't even acknowledge it themselves, they somehow convince themselves they are pro-democracy in the process of being undemocratic. It's insanity in protest form.

    They absolutely have the right to do this. Just don't expect me to say "fair play", unless that is they understand what they're protesting. Which they don't. They think they're protesting against racism? They're not, what they're really doing is playing into the hands of actual racists who exploit minorities in the form of identity politics to manipulate people like those we see protesting against Trump winning an election.
    They're expressing their opinion against things they don't approve, they're not calling to overthrow the government. What they're doing is quite literally what the yankeedoodle 1st amendment was made to protect. Silencing dissidents is banana republic fascist stuff. If they're guilty of something it's probably poor taste and unconvincing message.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  69. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    You mean you think he was doing just fine, you don't know that. You know absolutely nothing about his financial situation, his motivations, his aspirations, whether he actually wanted to be the president, does he see himself as aging and about to retire, none of that. You just have a base assumption that he's filthy rich, and everything else follows.
    Good point. This whole argument that he can't be corrupt because he's already so rich and doesn't need any more money is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've heard in a while, even in this thread. It's like saying you expect everyone to just stop trying to amass wealth once they reach a saturation point. Like it's never occurred to you (banana) that the thing he finds rewarding isn't having the money it's making more and more of it.
  70. #220
    Well first you said they were protesting democracy. Now you're saying they're wasting their time. Not the same force behind those criticisms.
    You're not absorbing what I say, you're simply replying in a manner that suits whatever you think I said.

    They are protesting demcoracy. That's my observation. Fuck knows what they think they're protesting. Are they wasting their time? That depends if they know what they're protesting.

    And yea, so what if they're wasting their time? It's their time and their right to protest. Do you have to agree with the utility of every protest yourself to appreciate that people have that right?
    I've already been clear that I acknowledge their right to protest. I'm just curious what this protest is.

    None of them are inciting violence afaik (at least not in that picture). If they were holding up signs saying 'kill Trump' or 'kill republicans' you might have a point. But they're not and so you don't. You just don't like them 'cause they're not on your team.
    This just shows you don't understand what violence is. To you it's merely a physical act of aggression on the person. Sorry, but no.
    Let's just distinguish between those who are wasting their time (have no idea what the protest is, just there to express dissatisfaction) and those who are not wasting their time (they know they protest democracy and are fine with that).

    The latter group, they are violent. They want to force change by means of aggression, change that you and I do not want to see in our nations in our lifetimes. They want to remove a democratically elected president immediately after he wins the election.

    If they don't want that, they they should keep their slogans and their moaning to social media instead of abusing a right that gets people shot in other countries.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're not absorbing what I say, you're simply replying in a manner that suits whatever you think I said.

    They are protesting demcoracy. That's my observation. Fuck knows what they think they're protesting. Are they wasting their time? That depends if they know what they're protesting.
    No they aren't. What the fuck are you even talking about here? You think saying 'not my president' is the equivalent to saying 'let's throw away democracy'?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This just shows you don't understand what violence is. To you it's merely a physical act of aggression on the person. Sorry, but no.
    Let's just distinguish between those who are wasting their time (have no idea what the protest is, just there to express dissatisfaction) and those who are not wasting their time (they know they protest democracy and are fine with that).

    The latter group, they are violent. They want to force change by means of aggression, change that you and I do not want to see in our nations in our lifetimes. They want to remove a democratically elected president immediately after he wins the election.

    If they don't want that, they they should keep their slogans and their moaning to social media instead of abusing a right that gets people shot in other countries.
    What about that picture makes you think they are campaigning for Trump's overthrow through non-democratic means? And if you say 'not my president again' I'm just going to stop talking to you about it.
  72. #222
    They're expressing their opinion against things they don't approve, they're not calling to overthrow the government.
    That's a protest? Expressing an opinion? They're gonna swarm on some city and make life hell for everyone just so they can say "we don't like this"?

    Sure they have the right to do it, but it's a dick move.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    They're gonna swarm on some city and make life hell for everyone just so they can say "we don't like this"?
    Lol, you're getting a bit infected with the banana hyperbolitis disease imo.
  74. #224
    What about that picture makes you think they are campaigning for Trump's overthrow through non-democratic means? And if you say 'not my president again' I'm just going to stop talking to you about it.
    Would you care to count how many times I've used that phrase compared to you? I think it's now 2-1 to you in this last hour.

    They are actively protesting. What are they protesting? If they're not protesting democracy, well cocco can only muster up "expressing their opinions". Is that cool with you? All these people crying about an election under the banner of "protest"?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Would you care to count how many times I've used that phrase compared to you? I think it's now 2-1 to you in this last hour.

    They are actively protesting. What are they protesting? If they're not protesting democracy, well cocco can only muster up "expressing their opinions". Is that cool with you? All these people crying about an election under the banner of "protest"?
    And what's wrong with saying they're expressing their opinions? What else do protesters do?

    Your argument seems to be 'they must be against something because they're protesting, and since they're protesting because Trump won, they must be protesting against democracy'.

    They're protesting against Trump, not the process that elected him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •