Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[Poopadoop]

Isn't it funny how it's only people served by coherence claiming coherence, despite all evidence to the contrary?

[Poopadoop]

incorrect, your buddy Bill blew that up. Right-wingers jumped on the "incoherent" bandwagon too.

Funny you mention this, 'cause yesterday you wrote a long analysis of that interview claiming it was coherent (at least I assume you did, I didn't read it). But now when it suits your argument, Bill was showing Trump up as incoherent in that interview.

I'm beginning to suspect you may not be the best person to judge what counts as coherent. Kruger-Dunning effect in action.

[BananaStand]

But now when it suits your argument, Bill was showing Trump up as incoherent in that interview.

Ahem........ARE YOU HIGH??

What Bill showed was that conservatives also had an opinion on Trump's coherence that suited their political ends. Nothing Bill posted demonstrates actual incoherence.

Kruger-Dunning effect in action.

No shit

[Poopadoop]

What Bill showed was that conservatives also had an opinion on Trump's coherence that suited their political ends. Nothing Bill posted demonstrates actual incoherence.

Bill didn't make any arguments about coherence and I'm not sure where 'posting' comes into it. He simply asked Trump some questions and lead him around several different opinions like a parent leading a child to the bedroom for nap time.

[BananaStand]

Bill didn't make any arguments about coherence and I'm not sure where 'posting' comes into it. He simply asked Trump some questions and lead him around several different opinions like a parent leading a child to the bedroom for nap time.

Are we talking about the same Bill?

When I said "your buddy Bill" I was referencing post #444

Who are you talking about? Bill O'Reilly?? See post #434. Actually read it. FYI - plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA can't hear you" is a real shitty debate strategy

[Poopadoop]

Are we talking about the same Bill?

When I said "your buddy Bill" I was referencing post #444

Who are you talking about? Bill O'Reilly?? See post #434. Actually read it. FYI - plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA can't hear you" is a real shitty debate strategy

Perhaps be a bit more clear on which Bill you're referring to genius, and maybe you won't be misunderstood. Another small lesson in coherence for you.

Anyways, if your argument is that RWM attacked Trump for being incoherent too, that just goes to show that whoever wants to attack him has an easy way to do so by simply pointing out his incoherence.

As for your post 434 I don't need to read it to know from experience it has a high likelihood of being rubbish laced with ad hominen.

[BananaStand]

As for your post 434 I don't need to read it to know from experience it has a high likelihood of being rubbish laced with ad hominen.

Wow, that cognitive dissonance is really causing you pain. Sorry bro.

[Poopadoop]

Wow, that cognitive dissonance is really causing you pain. Sorry bro.

That argument would have a lot more bite if you hadn't repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of what CD actually is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp!
Build a wall! Build a wall! Build a wall!
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

How can communication be "incoherent" if it is understood, and resonates, with so many people??

Drain the Swamp means what, exactly? What concrete policies does this suggest?

Build a Wall. What kind of wall for how much money on what time scale? I.e. what is the concrete policy?

Lock her up for what crimes, based on what evidence? Why is POTUS endorsing criminal punishment in advance of a jury trial?
(Calling for justice is fine; he likely knows more than we do about what evidence there is. I.e he may have excellent reasons, but we do not have the information we need to agree or disagree with his position unless we speculate reasons ourselves.)

In other words:

The thing is, Trump's ramblings act (intentionally or not) as policy horoscopes. There are regularly spaced meaningless tangential strings of words tossed in, that allow a listener predisposed to agreeing with Trump to fill in their preferred policy positions. Combined with the fact that any time he can be nailed down on something that doesn't fit his audience's views, it's claimed he is trolling, using a negotiating tactic, etc. It's a pretty cool parlor trick, but it's scary when it's the m.o. of our president.

[Poopadoop]

"Take away their guns first, then worry about due process" is a perfect example of that incoherence in policy that gets interpreted as trolling/3D chess by Trump apologists.

[Poopadoop]

Drain the Swamp means what, exactly? What concrete policies does this suggest?

All it suggests is there are people out there whose attention span won't allow them to digest a sentence longer than three words.

[Poopadoop]

"Take away their guns first, then worry about due process" is a perfect example of that incoherence in policy that gets interpreted as trolling/3D chess by Trump apologists.

Even the FN resident mouth breather is having trouble defending that one:

[BananaStand]

"Take away their guns first, then worry about due process" is a perfect example of that incoherence in policy that gets interpreted as trolling/3D chess by Trump apologists.

Well I'm not a Trump-apologist, and I can't speak for them. But I have remained healthily agnostic about whether or not Trump is really playing 3D chess on this issue. It's totally plausible that he's smart enough to say something like that to be popular, while secretly relying on congress to never actually enact the policy. If you read any of my posts you know that I have reserved final judgement on this until I see how Trump acts in the event the Dems take congress.

On the other hand, it's also entirely possible that Trump doesn't have a highly evolved position on guns, and doesn't really give a fuck. When asked about it during the campaign, his responses on the issue centered around appointing conservative judges. Which is the kind of policy you would have if you really don't give a fuck about guns.

[Poopadoop]

Well I'm not a Trump-apologist, and I can't speak for them. But I have remained healthily agnostic about whether or not Trump is really playing 3D chess on this issue. It's totally plausible that he's smart enough to say something like that to be popular, while secretly relying on congress to never actually enact the policy. If you read any of my posts you know that I have reserved final judgement on this until I see how Trump acts in the event the Dems take congress.

On the other hand, it's also entirely possible that Trump doesn't have a highly evolved position on guns, and doesn't really give a fuck. When asked about it during the campaign, his responses on the issue centered around appointing conservative judges. Which is the kind of policy you would have if you really don't give a fuck about guns.

I guess you've missed all the times Trump promised to uphold the 2nd amendment. Isn't taking away guns without due process shitting all over that? That's what Tucker whatshisname seems to be having issues with afaict.

[BananaStand]

Drain the Swamp means what, exactly? What concrete policies does this suggest?

860 Obama-era business regulations have been removed since Trump's inauguration.

It also means that his appointments are less likely to be career bureaucrats. Examples: Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly. Furthermore it means a commitment to appointing non-activist, conservative judges. And it involves an elimination of the convoluted doublespeak that politicians have been feeding to citizens for decades.

Build a Wall. What kind of wall for how much money on what time scale? I.e. what is the concrete policy?

Estimates for the wall all hover around $25 Billion. Specs for the actual wall can be found online. They have to be a certain height. They have to prevent underground tunnelling. And they have to have anti-scaling measures at the top. I could go find the exact specs, but I think your question is really more about "do specs exist?". And the answer is, yes they do.

There are about a dozen prototypes currently on the border that have undergone rigorous testing by US military special forces. I assume this testing will help refine the specs further. However, the main conclusion from this testing is that the walls work.

Preliminary rumblings suggest that the 30ft height requirement may be unnecessary, which would likely reduce construction costs. Also, there seems to be a preference for walls with see-through measures at eye-level.

You could just google this shit you know.

Lock her up for what crimes,

Purposeful mis-handling of classified information.

based on what evidence?

The conclusions of the FBI

Why is POTUS endorsing criminal punishment in advance of a jury trial? (Calling for justice is fine...)

Well there is enough definitive evidence of guilt that a jury's opinion is somewhat irrelevant. I don't think anyone is calling for Hillary to be deprived of due process. But the evidence is so compelling, and to this date unrefuted, that the outcome of due process....locking her up....is inevitable. It's kinda hard to get a crowd of people to chant "Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, present his findings to congress, bring charges, litigate, convict, and ultimately pass a sentence commensurate with the volume and severity of her crimes". It's just a lot easier to say "lock her up"

[BananaStand]

Isn't taking away guns without due process shitting all over that?

Yup, and if you've read my comments in this thread, I've been shitting all over Trump for saying that.

However, I'm not shitting on him quite as hard as I would be if...

A) I hosted a prime-time political show on a conservative cable station
B) If I was truly sure that Trump was even serious
C) If I thought it was remotely possible that it could ever actually happen with a republican-controlled congress

[BananaStand]

I guess you've missed all the times Trump promised to uphold the 2nd amendment

He's also said he's pro-life. That doesn't mean he really believes it.

The only reason Trump is running as a republican is because the 'meat' of his policies are just republican policies on steroids. Historically, the republicans have been fucking awesome at economics and foreign policy. Those are Trump's strengths as well.

But when it comes to domestic social issues, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he's really a closeted New York liberal.

[Poopadoop]

Well I'm not a Trump-apologist, but here's some ways I'll try to defend his comment...

a. Just to be popular (but doesn't really mean it)

b. Doesn't care and so said it just because he doesn't care.

a) sounds a bit retarded. Who is he trying to gain popularity with? All the people who hate his guts - like they're going to take that seriously as his position, forget everything he's said before (like a week ago about arming teachers) and think 'oh wow I had this Trump guy figured all wrong, he's actually anti-gun?'

b) notwithstanding the fact that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you think a president should care about gun violence in America? Seems like just a wee bit of a contentious issue for the public there.

[BananaStand]

a) sounds a bit retarded. Who is he trying to gain popularity with?

Probably the most intellectually lazy demographic there is.....undecided voters.

b) notwithstanding the fact that makes no sense at all, wouldn't you think a president should care about gun violence in America? Seems like just a wee bit of a contentious issue for the public there.

because NO ONE cares about gun violence in America. It only becomes a contentious issue when CNN can put crying white mothers on television.

[Poopadoop]

because NO ONE cares about gun violence in America.

Right, it's fake news that anyone cares. Because it doesn't affect you therefore it doesn't affect anyone.

[BananaStand]

Right, it's fake news that anyone cares. Because it doesn't affect you therefore it doesn't affect anyone.

I will concede that people care about it exponentially more than they care about Russian collusion. But that's really not saying much.

There are over 600 murders a year, and thousands of shootings, just in the city of Chicago. Did CNN have a televised town hall meeting to publicly humiliate the NRA on behalf of any of those victims??

They ceased "stop and frisk" in NYC, and crime went up. Yet you won't find anyone on the left who thinks that 'stop and frisk' is anything but a policy to allow racist cops to harass black people.

The democrats controlled both houses of congress and the presidency shortly after the assault weapons ban expired and they didn't do shit.


Other than angry tearful reactions to mass-shootings.....what makes you think that anyone in America is particularly concerned with gun-violence? How many presidential votes do you think were cast in....oh, let's say... the last 10 elections...that hinged on firearm policy?

[CoccoBill]

The first link is 3 years old!!

Um yes? You mean he's changed to be much more coherent nowadays is that it? If anything, it just shows this has been noticed by many for a while, not just recently.

The second link you posted....destroys your own argument!!!

LOL and what argument is that? You do realize that I posted 2 links, without a single additional word. Maybe step 1 in your recovery from a paranoid shit-slinging trollbot would be to realize that not every comment on the internet is an argument you need to attack. I just found it amusing how even your highly respected 1st grade news sites seem to talk a lot about his incoherence.

But, let's play.

The first link is 3 years old!!

Um yes? You mean he's changed to be much more coherent nowadays is that it? If anything, it just shows this has been noticed by many for a while, not just recently.

this seeming incoherence

Yes, it does seem incoherent, it seems.

his conversational style may also help construct an identity for him as authentic, relatable and trustworthy, which are qualities that voters look for in a presidential candidate

Yes, his seemingly incoherent conversational style may help in those things, that seems to be their point.

Trump's style is different from that of most modern public speakers. He has an especially repetitive style,......Trump's response included variations of the phrase "bomb all these sites" three times in quick succession:

Bing bing bong.

[CoccoBill]

860 Obama-era business regulations have been removed since Trump's inauguration.

Gotta say this is one of my favorites. You really think the unemployed coal miners were hooraying Trump allowing offshore-drilling, and not ridding the government of cronyism, corporate special interests etc? Drain the swamp is quite a genious phrase in that everyone can freely decide what it means, no wonder Trump was initially so against using that.

[BananaStand]

Gotta say this is one of my favorites. You really think the unemployed coal miners were hooraying Trump allowing offshore-drilling, and not ridding the government of cronyism, corporate special interests etc? Drain the swamp is quite a genious phrase in that everyone can freely decide what it means, no wonder Trump was initially so against using that.

Are you suggesting that Trump is not committed to improving the coal industry in America?? If so, you're delusional

[CoccoBill]

You didn't understand a word I said did you?

Edit: But you're kind of making my point. Whatever he actually says, you have conviction that it means what you think it means.

[BananaStand]

Um yes? You mean he's changed to be much more coherent nowadays is that it? If anything, it just shows this has been noticed by many for a while, not just recently.

It means that he's had an unorthodox speaking style for his entire life. It only becomes a problem when it's politically convenient for the observer.

Yes, it does seem incoherent, it seems.

By using the word "seem", it seems that you're agreeing that the perceived "incoherence" is not an objective determination.

Yes, his seemingly incoherent conversational style may help in those things, that seems to be their point.

This sounds like Trump support. If he is speaking in a way that allows him to connect with voters....what's wrong with that?

Bing bing bong.

You really don't think that repetition helps to more firmly communicate a message? You think advertising jingles are catchy by accident??

[BananaStand]

You didn't understand a word I said did you?

That's what happens when you're incoherent. People don't understand you.

Trump doesn't seem to have this problem. People seem to have a fairly solid understanding of most his positions.

[CoccoBill]

It means that he's had an unorthodox speaking style for his entire life. It only becomes a problem when it's politically convenient for the observer.

So you agree he's had a speaking style that to many seems incoherent for a long time now. I guess this is closest to a concession from you I've seen.

By using the word "seem", it seems that you're agreeing that the perceived "incoherence" is not an objective determination.

Absolutely. I'd say incoherence is indeed a very subjective experience.

This sounds like Trump support. If he is speaking in a way that allows him to connect with voters....what's wrong with that?

It's an observation into what of his qualities are gaining him popularity. He's certainly a charismatic speaker like I've said many times. Kind of like Hitler.

You really don't think that repetition helps to more firmly communicate a message? You think advertising jingles are catchy by accident??

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in different words. That can certainly be intentional and for sure a powerful way to leave a stronger memory imprint, but I can also see why someone can perceive it as rambling.

[CoccoBill]

That's what happens when you're incoherent. People don't understand you.

If more than one people start feeling that way I'll certainly try to address it.

Trump doesn't seem to have this problem. People seem to have a fairly solid understanding of most his positions.

Link?

[CoccoBill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e54P6ul1hdo

[BananaStand]

Link?

[BananaStand]

So you agree he's had a speaking style that to many seems incoherent for a long time now. I guess this is closest to a concession from you I've seen.

I said unorthodox. Not even close to a concession.

Absolutely. I'd say incoherence is indeed a very subjective experience.

And what does it say if a subjective interpretation is only espoused by your political enemies?

It's an observation into what of his qualities are gaining him popularity. He's certainly a charismatic speaker like I've said many times. Kind of like Hitler.

Obama is a charismatic speaker. I guess he's nazi too. Can you please make a "grown-up" argument??

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in different words. That can certainly be intentional and for sure a powerful way to leave a stronger memory imprint, but I can also see why someone can perceive it as rambling.

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in the same words.

In regards to the bolded....that sounds like a concession. Glad I was able to enlighten you.

[CoccoBill]

Last I checked there were more than 538 people in the US.

[BananaStand]

Last I checked there were more than 538 people in the US.

Do you really not know what those 538 votes represent?

Or are you just being stubborn for fun?

[CoccoBill]

And what does it say if a subjective interpretation is only espoused by your political enemies?

It says you should be wary about people who sees everyone with differing opinions as enemies.

Obama is a charismatic speaker. I guess he's nazi too. Can you please make a "grown-up" argument??

He might be, no way of knowing. You go first.

I think the quote in question referred to him saying the same thing many times during a conversation in the same words.

Trump's response included variations of the phrase "bomb all these sites" three times in quick succession

Mm-hm.

In regards to the bolded....that sounds like a concession. Glad I was able to enlighten you.

You mean I didn't already know that repetition can be used to memorize things? I do concede I didn't expect you to claim something that silly. Besides, it would be completely moot to the point of him sounding incoherent to many people.

[CoccoBill]

Do you really not know what those 538 votes represent?

Or are you just being stubborn for fun?

Sort of, since I don't expect you to change your mind one iota no matter what information tries to enter your brain. Voting for someone implies assumed coherence of the electee's positions, not an actual understanding of them, and the electoral college has an even looser relation to any of that. You'd have a great career in law.

[Poopadoop]

Last I checked there were more than 538 people in the US.

rofl helicopters

[Poopadoop]

bananalogic - Trump won the election, therefore he must be coherent. Never mind that he isn't, he must be because he won.

Hey banana, when you voted, do you remember what it said on the election ballot? 'Cause I'm kinda guessing it didn't say "For president, please cast your vote for the candidate you find more coherent."

[OngBonga]

Coherence really is subjective, isn't it? Perhaps those who find other people incoherent are the ones at fault.

I think banana is making the point that the American voters had a fairly clear idea what Trump's policies were because he got elected.

I don't know what his policies are, not in detail. I would if I spent an hour or two using search engines and taking links.

[OngBonga]

bananalogic - Trump won the election, therefore he must be coherent. Never mind that he isn't, he must be because he won.

It's fairly sound logic. Would you vote for someone you thought was incoherent? Me neither. So... half the voting public didn't find him incoherent. Either that or they don't give a fuck about coherence. Either way, fit for office etc.

[Poopadoop]

Coherence really is subjective, isn't it? Perhaps those who find other people incoherent are the ones at fault.

Looool.

"Mewanao wermer bluboe."

If you don't understand that, it's your fault not mine. Coccobill understands it, don't you CB?

I think banana is making the point that the American voters had a fairly clear idea what Trump's policies were because he got elected.

I think you're giving the average voter too much credit here for being informed. A fair number of Trump supporters likely were just caught up in a wave of anti-establishment feeling and rabble rousing imo.

I don't know what his policies are, not in detail.

Me neither. I mean I could tell you what he said recently about such and such. But I doubt it's the same thing he said six months ago.

I would if I spent an hour or two using search engines and taking links.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

[OngBonga]

Me neither. I mean I could tell you what he said recently about such and such. But I doubt it's the same thing he said six months ago.

"doubt"

You don't even know, do you?

[OngBonga]

Trump's policy is incoherent.

Of course I don't actually know what his policy is. I just know it's incoherent.

[Poopadoop]

It's fairly sound logic. Would you vote for someone you thought was incoherent? Me neither.

You as much as admitted you would since you don't seem to know Trump's policies but still support him.

So... half the voting public didn't find him incoherent. Either that or they don't give a fuck about coherence.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

Either way, fit for office etc.

If by 'fit' you mean 'won' then I agree. By any other definition I don't.

[Poopadoop]

"doubt"

You don't even know, do you?

I know six months ago he was ranting about protecting the 2nd amendment. Then just the other day he said 'take their guns first and due process later'. It's things like that that lead me to doubt his consistency.

[OngBonga]

You as much as admitted you would since you don't seem to know Trump's policies but still support him.

I only support him in the sense I think he's preferable to the alternative. Would I vote for him? I'm not American. If I were American, I would be able to tell you his policies, and only then would I be able to tell you for certain if I'd vote for him.

I simply don't detest him like you do, and I still think the world dodged a bullet.

[Poopadoop]

I only support him in the sense I think he's preferable to the alternative. Would I vote for him? I'm not American. If I were American, I would be able to tell you his policies, and only then would I be able to tell you for certain if I'd vote for him.

I simply don't detest him like you do, and I still think the world dodged a bullet.

Although I doubt they shared your level of paranoia, I suspect a lot of people who voted for him had much the same attitude - not good, but not as bad as the alternative. But that's not the same as saying they appreciated his coherent stance on the issues.

[BananaStand]

Hey banana, when you voted, do you remember what it said on the election ballot? 'Cause I'm kinda guessing it didn't say "For president, please cast your vote for the candidate you find more coherent."

You vote for the candidate that best represents your values and beliefs. how would you know who that is unless the candidate has expressed his values and beliefs coherently enough for you to know whether or not they represent your own

[OngBonga]

But that's not the same as saying they appreciated his coherent stance on the issues.

Ok but coherence seems to be really important to you, even though we've established it's subjective. What do you expect him to do about your lack of ability to grasp what he's trying to say? Use different words? Then someone else will find him incoherent.

Try harder to find him coherent. Or... stop giving a fuck about how coherent foreign leaders are to you.

[Poopadoop]

You vote for the candidate that best represents your values and beliefs. how would you know who that is unless the candidate has expressed his values and beliefs coherently enough for you to know whether or not they represent your own

Who is 'you'? in this analysis? Do you purport to speak for all voters?

[Poopadoop]

Ok but coherence seems to be really important to you, even though we've established it's subjective.

No we've established you want to argue about what it means to be coherent by ignoring what is objective about the coherent expression of thought with language. There's a reason why there's books out there about how to write and speak and communicate clearly, and that they all offer the same advice. And none of them advise you to babble.

What do you expect him to do about your lack of ability to grasp what he's trying to say? Use different words? Then someone else will find him incoherent.

Well I don't know I guess those four year olds will just have to suffer.

Try harder to find him coherent. Or... stop giving a fuck about how coherent foreign leaders are to you.

You keep pretending I'm the only one who finds him incoherent, as if the problem lies with me for holding him to some impossible standard that no person regardless of their intellect (not even a very stable genius) could live up to.

[OngBonga]

You keep pretending I'm the only one who finds him incoherent

No, I'm not pretending that at all. I assuming it's the entire left.

[Poopadoop]

No, I'm not pretending that at all. I assuming it's the entire left.

It used to include large sections of the right as well. Then once he was nominated, they suddenly acquired a marvelous module that translated his nonsense into sense.

[BananaStand]

It used to include large sections of the right as well. Then once he was nominated, they suddenly acquired a marvelous module that translated his nonsense into sense.

It was just a small section of the right, mostly on the extreme right, the Ben Shapiro's of the world.

Go back and watch the republican debates. No one disliked Trump for being incoherent. They disliked him because he was a filthy, gaping, hemorrhoidal ass hole.

[BananaStand]

Do you purport to speak for all voters?

I'm gonna say yes. Only because that seems like a good place to end this madness.

[Poopadoop]

I'm gonna say yes. Only because that seems like a good place to end this madness.

Well i purport to speak for all intelligent people and say Trump is a babbling idiot. Just to end this silly discussion.

[BananaStand]

Well i purport to speak for all intelligent people and say Trump is a babbling idiot. Just to end this silly discussion.

And I purport to speak for the voting public when I say the vast majority of people take voting seriously

[BananaStand]

No we've established you want to argue about what it means to be coherent by ignoring what is objective about the coherent expression of thought with language. There's a reason why there's books out there about how to write and speak and communicate clearly, and that they all offer the same advice. And none of them advise you to babble.

Do those books end by saying "And that's how you be charismatic and persuasive"

[Poopadoop]

Do those books end by saying "And that's how you be charismatic and persuasive"

No more than the book on how to be charismatic claims it will make you coherent. What's your point?

[Poopadoop]

And I purport to speak for the voting public when I say the vast majority of people take voting seriously

Purport yourself silly.

[BananaStand]

No more than the book on how to be charismatic claims it will make you coherent. What's your point?

The book on how to be charismatic ends with "that's how you win votes"

[wufwugy]

Do you mean because they voted for him? Why does that prove they find him coherent?

At least four people on this forum have said that we understand him just fine, and some of us have said that we know/know of/have seen very large numbers of people who say they understand him. Also crowds of millions across the country love to hear him speak and many high traffic websites that publish in part based on understanding him.

You might not find him coherent. I'll leave that up to you. I find him coherent and I'm in company of many.


On the topic of cognitive decline, he has that. It can't be said to what degree or what it is causing or that the behavior people think is decline actually is, but every person his age has cognitive decline. IIRC cognition begins to decline technically at some point after the mid twenties or something.

[Poopadoop]

What is Trump's policy on gun control?

What's his policy on foreign trade?

How about abortion?

[Poopadoop]

The book on how to be charismatic ends with "that's how you win votes"

If I were talking about such a book that would be relevant. As it is, you're simply changing the topic from coherence to something else you'd prefer to talk about.

[BananaStand]

What is Trump's policy on gun control?

Judges

What's his policy on foreign trade?

Reciprocity

How about abortion?

DGAF

[OngBonga]

What is Trump's policy on gun control?

What's his policy on foreign trade?

How about abortion?

gun control - seems to me that he's trying to compromise in an effort to actually get things done. He wants stronger background checks. He wants armed protection at schools. He wants mentally ill people and cirminals to not be allowed guns. He wants consistency when it comes to age. He also wants to protect the 2nd Amendment for law abiding, sane citizens. Seems coherent to me.

source - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ipt-roundtable

foreign trade - I thought he was very coherent on this matter, I don't need to research. "America first" is his catchphrase, what that means in the real world is a question for economists, but I believe Toyota are opening a factory in Alabama, thanks to Trump. So on the surface it looks to me like he's trying, and succeeding, in bringing jobs to America.

abortion - pro life. Show me incoherence on this matter.

[BananaStand]

Any body seeing this Nunberg guy on TV in the last day or so?

He worked for Trump for about six minutes at the very beginning of the campaign, and Mueller wants his emails. Nunberg says Mueller can go fuck himself. He's basically daring Mueller to send him to prison for refusing to comply with the subpeona. He claims he's just personally too lazy to go through his emails, and he actually DOES believe Trump might have done something wrong.

This is like candy for CNN. Did you see what happened when he went on CNN?

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/05/sa...-drunk-on-cnn/

If the host thought he was drunk when she talked to him before the show....then she is an epic retard for putting him on TV. Furthermore, by calling out his drunk-ness on TV, they have completely discredited all the anti-trump stuff he is saying. Brilliant!!

[Poopadoop]

gun control - seems to me that he's trying to compromise in an effort to actually get things done. He wants stronger background checks. He wants armed protection at schools. He wants mentally ill people and cirminals to not be allowed guns. He wants consistency when it comes to age. He also wants to protect the 2nd Amendment for law abiding, sane citizens. Seems coherent to me.

You don't get to apply the constitution as you see fit. The 2nd amendment and due process also apply to crazy people - just ask banana I'm sure he knows all about it.

foreign trade - I thought he was very coherent on this matter, I don't need to research. "America first" is his catchphrase, what that means in the real world is a question for economists, but I believe Toyota are opening a factory in Alabama, thanks to Trump. So on the surface it looks to me like he's trying, and succeeding, in bringing jobs to America.

You can only really describe it in the same limited number of words he does. "America first." and "Jobs." I guess now we can add 'impulsive and pissy pants trade war with the entire world over steel, against the advice of his econ advisor who is probably going to join the ranks of ex-advisors soon since his boss doesn't even consult him over major policy decisions'

abortion - pro life. Show me incoherence on this matter.

The issue is a bit more complicated than pro life/pro choice (though that's a big part of it). I guess the subtle nuances of the issue aren't something Trump is interested in exploring.

[BananaStand]

The 2nd amendment and due process also apply to crazy people - just ask banana I'm sure he knows all about it.

Incorrect. If you have been adjudicated as mentally unstable, through due process, then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to you anymore.

You can only really describe it in the same limited number of words he does. "America first." and "Jobs." I guess now we can add 'impulsive and pissy pants trade war with the entire world over steel, against the advice of his econ advisor who is probably going to join the ranks of ex-advisors soon since his boss doesn't even consult him over major policy decisions'

LOL, Trump has been screaming about steel tarriffs since the 80's!! It was a pillar of his campaign. People voted for it. Trump is trading short term price consequences for long-term job security. It's also a kick in the balls to China...which was long overdue.

Plus, he's shown that he's very open to dropping the tariffs entirely if America can get a fair deal in the NAFTA negotiations. Funny how those just finished their 8th or 9th round of talks with very little progress, right around the same time Trump rolls out the steel tariffs.

That's balls-out negotiation, not the wimpy pussy-footing of his predecessors.

The issue is a bit more complicated than pro life/pro choice (though that's a big part of it). I guess the subtle nuances of the issue aren't something Trump is interested in exploring.

True.

[Poopadoop]

Incorrect. If you have been adjudicated as mentally unstable, through due process, then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to you anymore.

You just contradicted yourself. I said '2nd amend. AND due process' and you're like 'duh, no they have due process then they lose the 2nd amendment'. Good job there Karl Popper.

LOL, Trump has been screaming about steel tarriffs since the 80's!! It was a pillar of his campaign. People voted for it. Trump is trading short term price consequences for long-term job security. It's also a kick in the balls to China...which was long overdue.

Plus, he's shown that he's very open to dropping the tariffs entirely if America can get a fair deal in the NAFTA negotiations. Funny how those just finished their 8th or 9th round of talks with very little progress, right around the same time Trump rolls out the steel tariffs.

That's balls-out negotiation, not the wimpy pussy-footing of his predecessors.

Yeah that's his thing for sure, let's see how it plays out.

[BananaStand]

You just contradicted yourself. I said '2nd amend. AND due process' and you're like 'duh, no they have due process then they lose the 2nd amendment'.

LOL, you feel good about that post? Proud of yourself right now?

[Poopadoop]

LOL, you feel good about that post? Proud of yourself right now?

The point of repeatedly exposing your lack of logic is to try to educate you on proper argumentation. Currently, whenever you're unable to counter the argument, your style is to either distort it into something you can counter, or attack the messenger.

[BananaStand]

The point of repeatedly exposing your lack of logic is to try to educate you on proper argumentation. Currently, whenever you're unable to counter the argument, your style is to either distort it into something you can counter, or attack the messenger.

You said that the 2nd amendment applies to crazy people. I'm not sure what you're missing....if you're crazy, you don't have 2nd amendment rights.

[MadMojoMonkey]

He's missing the part where you cannot be bothered by logic or sensibility, yet he keeps trying to speak to you using logic and sense.

[Poopadoop]

You said that the 2nd amendment applies to crazy people. I'm not sure what you're missing....if you're crazy, you don't have 2nd amendment rights.

here's what i actually said:

The 2nd amendment and due process also apply to crazy people

So, until you go through due process of being adjudicated as insane, you have both the 2nd amendment right and the right to due process. So yes, crazy people still a constitutional 2nd amendment right until someone determines they are insane through due process, at which point they lose their 2nd amendment right. Otherwise you could just call anyone crazy and take away their guns.

Maybe it would be better to explain that in a manner that you would find more coherent, like 'constitution - first prove crazy, then take guns', and 'Trump - first take guns, then prove crazy'. See the difference?