monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@tony5732,

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech - with its limitations. It doesn't matter where the public location is. Your opinion about "inappropriate place" is your own opinion without any legal standing.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Oh absolutely, I agree with you completely. Obama saying that wad not illegal and it was his opinion, and my thoughts that it was in the wrong place also only an opinion. A riot the next month, and than again the month after that is a fact. The correlation between the obama's words and the riots are just an observation than can be perceived as one chooses.

1 Reply

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

Ok. I am not bashing freedom of speech, and I am not bashimg the right to assemble. What I am having a hard time understanding is how this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

OR this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

Allows this

http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/watch-crowd-burns-down-bp-gas-station-with-employees-trapped-inside

And where Obama says anything about these people, or anybody like these people who have been robbed, beat, or unnecessarily harmed during the riots.

I don't think dallas had anything to do with a riot. That was a shooting. I didn't say anything about Obama's stance on shootings.

Simply providing links to Wikipedia material doesn't disclose your knowledge or understanding of any particular subject matter.

Providing Wikipedia material listing incidents of civil unrest, including unrest among left wing and right wing factions, does not support your argument that rioting has been continuous for 8 years under Obama's watch and liberals are growing more and more violent.

Your initial argument was no better than Chicken Little's argument that the sky is falling because an acorn dropped on his head.

Your alleged condemnation of Obama also changes when you are cornered on your unsupported accusations.

Despite your unsupported assertions, Obama has in fact made statements condemning violence. A cursory search discloses that your condemnation was false so you shifted your sands from a general condemnation of Obama over a course of 8 years to a specific condemnation over a criminal act committed on one occasion.

Now your argument is no longer the sky is falling, but rather one acorn fell from a tree on one particular day and Obama is bad.

Someday, you might be able to put forth an argument that is both valid and sound. But I don't think it will be any day soon.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

OK. This isn't working. Show me how you would make an argument that supports the idea Obama helping the riot situation, during any of his 8 years.

You say my argument sucks, show me how it's done.

1 Reply

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

Oh absolutely, I agree with you completely. Obama saying that wad not illegal and it was his opinion, and my thoughts that it was in the wrong place also only an opinion. A riot the next month, and than again the month after that is a fact. The correlation between the obama's words and the riots are just an observation than can be perceived as one chooses.

Do not confuse actual truth with "truthiness" or "Trumpiness" as defined by Stephen Colbert.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

What the heck would not be true about this statement??

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Do not confuse Stephen Colbert with anyone that actually seeks the truth.

0 Replies

@tony5732,

Speech is protected, but rioting is not.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yep. That's exactly what I am saying. Yes.

0 Replies

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

OK. This isn't working. Show me how you would make an argument that supports the idea Obama helping the riot situation, during any of his 8 years.

You say my argument sucks, show me how it's done.

I already pointed out some flaws in your shifting arguments, but it's not my job to educate you. Conduct your own search for educational materials readily available on the internet, utilize the educational materials to feed your mind, and learn how to craft arguments that are both valid and sound. Or don't do that. I don't care if you have no credibility.

1 Reply

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

What the heck would not be true about this statement??

Oh for crying out loud! You have not yet established any alleged correlation. And if you jumped that first hurdle, you should know that correlation does not imply causation. And just because you "feel" something is true that doesn't mean it's true.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

You didn't point out ANY flaws in ANY of my arguments. You just pointed out what you saw as a flaw in me, with no actual facts or information or sources whatsoever. Basically you covered your ears and went "sha la la la la I can't hear you, your stupid, that's a lie".

A child can do that.

1 Reply

No Hope?

0 Replies

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

You didn't point out ANY flaws in ANY of my arguments. You just pointed out what you saw as a flaw in me, with no actual facts or information or sources whatsoever. Basically you covered your ears and went "sha la la la la I can't hear you, your stupid, that's a lie".

A child can do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM

1 Reply

The Washington Post fact checker is setting up a Trump Promise Tracker to monitor where he keeps or fails to keep promises he laid out in his Oct 22 Contract With The American Voter. You can sign up for weekly updates and you should https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-promise-tracker/

Of course, pretty much every failure noted here will be excused by most folks on the right as merely a "left wing media" false attack (because if it isn't pro-Trump it is axiomatically false). But that's the propaganda operation and we'll have to keep on insisting that truth does matter.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

You know what? Great argument. You showed me Debra Law. I don't know how anyone keeps up with you. Here. I'll even thumb you up.

I can't give you a cookie over the Internet but if I could you would be getting one.

0 Replies

Apparently we have a final cumulative vote count now (per tweet from Josh Marshall) with Clinton at 2.864 million votes over Trump.

And let's note that Dems have now won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.

1 Reply

@blatham,

He's not going to do half the stuff he said he would. Neither did Obama, neither would Hillary. You have to say x amount of BS. Just to get into office.

1 Reply

@blatham,

That doesn't matter in our republic and it never did....

0 Replies

I don't think he will fulfill his promises either, he played a bunch supporters for chumps and the chumps will just act as though they never wanted that stuff anyway.

Meanwhile, it has been leaked Rex Tillerson is the director of the Bahamas-based US-Russian oil company. Not hard to guess there why Trump picked him to be Secretary of State.

Quote:

Rex Tillerson, the businessman picked by Donald Trump to be the next US secretary of state, is the long-time director of a US-Russian oil firm based in the tax haven of the Bahamas, leaked documents show.

Tillerson – the chief executive of ExxonMobil – has been a director of the oil company’s Russian subsidiary, Exxon Neftegas, since 1998. His name – RW Tillerson – appears next to other officers who are based at Houston in Texas; Moscow; and Sakhalin, in Russia’s remote Far East.

The leaked 2001 document comes from the corporate registry in the Bahamas. It was one of 1.3m files given to Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung by an anonymous source. The registry is public but details of individual directors are typically incomplete or missing entirely.

Though there is nothing untoward about this directorship, it has not been reported before and is likely to raise fresh questions over Tillerson’s relationship with Russia ahead of a potentially stormy confirmation hearing by the US senate foreign relations committee.

3 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know