Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malevolence said:
You know what really bugs me, the way Trump reads from his script on on the lectern. He seems to have the reading skills of a five year old, and it doesn't help that he's constantly looking down and mumbling. If he's really is incapable of memorising more than a sentence at a time then you'd have thought one of his many wranglers would have said something to him about it by now. And the way he repeats things twice, things that don't really need repeating, really boils my **** too.
Click to expand...

I expect people have said something about it to him, but they can only give advice. They can't make him follow it. Also, I'm sure he's not able to do better. He gives every possible indication of being extremely bad at public speaking and I don't think he's faking it to maintain an image for political purposes. The latter happens, but it's much more subtle than Trump. He's too bad at it too consistently for it to be an act.

Murphy said:
That would be stretching the bounds of reason and considering you've only really participated in this thread the "since i entered" statement doesn't seem a convincing reason to dismiss the prior 4 years and 42k posts in the SC thread, do you really think no one has attempted to have a fair discussion and backed up their claims in all that time? [..]
Click to expand...

Yes. Given how fervently the loudest faction shouts down any attempt to do so and given that none of the people claiming it happened can provide any evidence of it happening, I think it has not happened.

Do you really think it's possible in an environment where any deviation from rabid hatred of Trump, even when it's dislike of and contempt for Trump, is met with false accusations, racism, sexism, classism and every other fashioanable form of irrational prejudice and statements that you are evil and insane?

Washout said:
How is that not stealing??!!
Click to expand...

Because all the money went to where it was supposed to go. None of it was stolen. The ruling wasn't that Trump had stolen any money. It was that he had used the fundraising campaign to generate positive publicity for his election campaign. Handing out checks in person as a photo opportunity, that sort of thing. A breach of campaign rules. Not theft.
 
plasmahal said:
It was just a matter of time for the TDS squad to put you in a labelled box. And boy, did they go for it.

Yet more irrational ramblings from an irrational brain cell.

They got all upset, screechy and super salty for calling out the SC thread for what it is, a cesspit echo chamber.
Click to expand...

All true. What makes their irrational prejudice even lazier is that they didn't even bother seeing if the group identity labels they stuck on me apply. They didn't even get half of them right. Of course belief in group identity and the irrational prejudice that goes with it is always wrong anyway, but what they're doing is on a par with denigrating Boris Johnson for being a gay working class communist Labour party member.
 
Pottsey said:
I wasn’t going to re-enter this thread and wont post much after this.
Click to expand...

I probably won't either. It's a cesspool I only entered because I was bored and got stuck in it out of fascination for how foul and sordid it is.

But as I am sitting here waiting for 20mins for a delivery before going back to work. What about when I spent weeks answers questions from hard core Trump supporters, I backed up all my points with evidence, links across both Trump threads. Then when I posted my valid reasonable questions towards the Trump supporters and multiple supporters just responded to me with deflection and lies back?
Click to expand...

So you narrow it down to telling me to read all of your posts, without providing any links to any example. That's an improvement over the previous answer of telling me to read 50,000 posts to try to find an example of something nobody can provide an example of, but it's still not an example. If I decide to spare the time, I'll go looking. But why not link to one example? Just one would do.
 
May I ask why the Donald trump bashing thread is allowed but other political threads are deleted, ie. Coronavirus? It seems that your threads are deleted if your political views swing one way rather than the other (I'm Pretty middle ground myself)
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Well well well even Fox News and "Dr Oz" have changed their tune on hydroxychloroquine now. Just a few short days ago when Trump was pushing this hard so were they. But all us "libs" were just wanting it to fail to make Trump look bad when we said Trump pushing a drug like that was irresponsible and dangerous :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Plenty of other people were suggesting it as a treatment before Trump did. If they hadn't been, Trump wouldn't have known about it. It's not like he's well informed about medical research and experimental treatments (or anything else). There were (and still are) some superficial initial indications that it might help (and now some that it doesn't). It hasn't been properly tested. Which is probably the right call because there are more promising approaches that probably should be investigated first.

Also, some people were "just wanting it to fail to make Trump look bad" and said exactly that, publically.
 
Angilion said:
I probably won't either. It's a cesspool I only entered because I was bored and got stuck in it out of fascination for how foul and sordid it is.

So you narrow it down to telling me to read all of your posts, without providing any links to any example. That's an improvement over the previous answer of telling me to read 50,000 posts to try to find an example of something nobody can provide an example of, but it's still not an example. If I decide to spare the time, I'll go looking. But why not link to one example? Just one would do.
Click to expand...
I narrowed it down far more then read all my posts, perhaps you missed it in my wall of text. What I said was go into the other main trump tread in SC where I stopped posting. Search for my last few posts in that thread and within the last few posts are some perfect examples of what you asked for. See post 39789 onwards for Trump supporter plasmahal doing deflections and one liners instead of debating. Check out the response they do both to me and Jono8. If you go further back there are tons of examples but that is an easy one for you to find.

In case you are not aware, you can go into a thread and search for a select poster in that select thread. Should take seconds to do a search.

As for why not link. I am fed up of doing it. Its one of the Trump fans favorite tricks and something plasmahal does a lot. They pretend to not find something or to not have read something, ask you to search for it and when you do do they ignore the link. Then they wait a while and say you never posted the link despite the fact you did. Asking you to dig it up again while calming you never provided evidence despite the fact you you did. Repeat. Its a tactic they like to use to make you waste time instead of responding and having a real debate its one of many reasons so many people have blocked that user. Pretty sure that's one of the reasons why they appeared to get the strikes and 7 day ban. There are even examples of it not long after post 39789 (Other thread)
 
Flibster said:
Well well... Who would'a thunked it... [..]
Click to expand...

An authoritarian ruler who used to be a KGB agent and is proud of that ordered interference in elections in other countries. What a surprise! The report also concludes that Putin ordered interference in the 2008 and 2012 USA presidential elections as well. Also not a surprise.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if countries trying to interfere in elections in other countries happened often and not just from Russia. I think the important question is how much success such interference has, not whether or not it happens.
 
Pottsey said:
I narrowed it down far more then read all my posts, perhaps you missed it in my wall of text. What I said was go into the other main trump tread in SC where I stopped posting. Search for my last few posts in that thread and within the last few posts are some perfect examples of what you asked for. See post 39789 onwards for Trump supporter plasmahal doing deflections and one liners instead of debating. Check out the response they do both to me and Jono8. If you go further back there are tons of examples but that is an easy one for you to find.
Click to expand...

I've just read that post and it's not an example of a fair discussion of why someone supports Trump. It's you saying "You cannot use that excuse against me" in response to someone who was replying to a different person. Easy enough to find, but not what you claim it is.

I'll have to read through your earlier posts in that thread to see if I can find any examples, which will take some time. Time I could more enjoyably spend playing games.

As for why not link. I am fed up of doing it. [..]
Click to expand...

I am fed up with people making claims they won't support and expecting people to trawl through who knows how many posts to find something which might or might not be there.
 
Angilion said:
I am fed up with people making claims they won't support....
Click to expand...

KJ7dWNo.jpg
 
Angilion said:
I expect people have said something about it to him, but they can only give advice. They can't make him follow it. Also, I'm sure he's not able to do better. He gives every possible indication of being extremely bad at public speaking and I don't think he's faking it to maintain an image for political purposes. The latter happens, but it's much more subtle than Trump. He's too bad at it too consistently for it to be an act.
Click to expand...

He has a terrible vocabulary and isn't particularly intelligent. Its plain for anyone to see watching him speak.





Angilion said:
Because all the money went to where it was supposed to go. None of it was stolen. The ruling wasn't that Trump had stolen any money. It was that he had used the fundraising campaign to generate positive publicity for his election campaign. Handing out checks in person as a photo opportunity, that sort of thing. A breach of campaign rules. Not theft.
Click to expand...

Except for the items he bought with the money and the debts he paid with it. He might have paid it all back later but if he's so rich why did he use charity funds in the first place? His intention was to use it but he got caught. It might not be technically theft but ask anyone if someone uses charity funds to buy themselves gifts or pay off debts are they stealing from the charity and 99% of people will say yes.
 
Angilion said:
Plenty of other people were suggesting it as a treatment before Trump did. If they hadn't been, Trump wouldn't have known about it. It's not like he's well informed about medical research and experimental treatments (or anything else). There were (and still are) some superficial initial indications that it might help (and now some that it doesn't). It hasn't been properly tested. Which is probably the right call because there are more promising approaches that probably should be investigated first.

Also, some people were "just wanting it to fail to make Trump look bad" and said exactly that, publically.
Click to expand...

Oh come on he was pushing it so hard in his "briefings". He just couldn't let it go. As you say he's not well informed so maybe as the majority of people were suggesting, he should have left the medicine to the professionals. That is all people were asking but again and again he pushed this drug combo.

There will be some that always want Trump to fall on his arse, he makes it so easy to dislike him, he is a terrible human being after all. What would have annoyed me had this drug combo worked is that Trump and his fans would have claimed it as a Trump victory when it would have been nothing of the sort. He would have done the square root of **** all to bring it about but that wouldn't have stopped the ridiculous arse kissing that would have followed.
 
Pottsey said:
Read the rest of it. It says Trump had to reimburse the charity for the items he brought out of charity money for himself. It also confirms Trump used charity money to further his political campaign which he had it pay back. Plus we have the hand written evidence of Trump directing charity money be spent on his none charity lawsuits. Just because Trump reimbursed the money due to an investigation it doesn't change the fact of what he did. Anyway its time to move on, this one has been done to death already.
Click to expand...
Perhaps another court judgment does but, and forgive me for not double checking as it's late, but i don't recall the court order i linked to mentioning the Trump had to reimburse the charity for the items he brought out of charity money for himself, could you quote the relevant section or if it's not that court order provide a link that i can checkout tomorrow.

I'm guessing it's another court order as the judge in the one i linked to only ruled on one point, this one...
The sole remaining issue – which the parties agreed would be determined by me – is the amount of any additional payment owed by Mr. Trump arising out of the allegedly improper use of the Foundation and distribution of the Funds received by the Foundation from Mr. Trump's Fundraiser. Upon my determination of any additional amount to be paid by Mr. Trump, the parties agreed to withdraw and discontinue with prejudice the remaining causes of action not previously dismissed.
Click to expand...
....
Angilion said:
Yes. Given how fervently the loudest faction shouts down any attempt to do so and given that none of the people claiming it happened can provide any evidence of it happening, I think it has not happened.

Do you really think it's possible in an environment where any deviation from rabid hatred of Trump, even when it's dislike of and contempt for Trump, is met with false accusations, racism, sexism, classism and every other fashioanable form of irrational prejudice and statements that you are evil and insane?
Click to expand...
Then you're just as guilty of the very actions you're accusing others of, you're being unreasonable because you're dismissing what any reasonable person would consider a credible argument, to suggest that no one, in the space of 4 years and 45k odd posts that a "fair discussion (of why a person supports Trump) has [not] been attempted many times. Or even once" is exactly that, an unfair (or rather unreasonable) dismissal.

And yes i do think it's possible, in case it's escaped your notice that's exactly what Pottsey and myself are currently doing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom