monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

It seems obvious to me that Trump continues to behave as he is doing now not because he actually plans on running again but rather because he understands how much money is to be made bilking fools.

1 Reply

@blatham,

You are wrong. But you should be used to it by now.

1 Reply

When there is an obvious risk to business and profits, things change

Quote:

National Association Of Manufacturers Unexpectedly Calls For Pence To Invoke 25th Amendment

Talking Points Memo

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You are as crazy as your hero Trump.

0 Replies

twitter has removed 45's two most recent tweets and locked his account for the next twelve hours...

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The reason is because I reject the very premise of your wrong and backwards thinking.

Nope, you reject it because you don't want to deal in reality and you can't explain how his behaviour was anything but dishonest. Each of your answers have been blatantly evasive - which is deceiving no-one but yourself.

Quote:

I always back my own words up.

Nope, haven't done so here. Doing so here would either be providing examples of honesty (in context), or explaining how Trumps behaviours, both individually and as a whole, were honest. You have done neither of these, and are fooling no-one but yourself.

Talking about honest behaviours isn't rejected by the courts - I think they would be viewed as being unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...which is very different from what is utterly obvious dishonest behaviours / very different from a discussion of honest behaviours. Ie. this argument of yours is just another self deceptive justification to avoid backing up what you can't back up.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Nope, you reject it because you don't want to deal in reality

I always deal in reality. You cannot point out any untrue statements in my posts.

vikorr wrote:

and you can't explain how his behaviour was anything but dishonest.

I not only can, I've done so.

vikorr wrote:

Each of your answers have been blatantly evasive

No they haven't.

vikorr wrote:

Nope, haven't done so here.

Yes I have.

vikorr wrote:

Doing so here would either be providing examples of honesty (in context), or explaining how Trumps behaviours, both individually and as a whole, were honest. You have done neither of these, and are fooling no-one but yourself.

Wrong again. I explained how Mr. Trump's behavior was actually honest.

vikorr wrote:

They aren't rejected by courts - they are viewed as being unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...

Sophistry.

vikorr wrote:

...which is very different from what is utterly obvious.

Witch hunters always think it is obvious that innocent people are guilty.

You're exactly the sort of person who would burn innocent women for witchcraft 500 years ago.

vikorr wrote:

And also very different from a discussion of honest behaviours. Ie. this argument of yours is just another self deceptive justification to avoid backing up what you can't back up.

Wrong. It is me rejecting your backwards and appalling demagogy.

2 Replies

From bad to worse for the fuckwits.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-07/georgia-democrat-jon-ossof-wins-senate-runoff-election/13038302

0 Replies

Melania's chief of staff Stephanie Grisham has resigned over today's riot...

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I always deal in reality. You cannot point out any untrue statements in my posts

I never mentioned untrue statements. I said your not dealing in reality is to do with what you won't face, and won't talk about (ie provide explanation or example for) .

Quote:

I not only can, I've done so.

Nope. You made a statement. When challenged you only made another statement. When challenged on that, you still continued to provide no explanation, and no example - which is what backing up your statements means. Your responses have been short, substanceless slogans.

Each of your responses has been blatantly evasive (of providing actual examples, explanation, or otherwise)

Quote:

Wrong again. I explained how Mr. Trump's behavior was actually honest.

Nope. You said he believed it to be true. Believing a lie you tell yourself is not honest. The only way you can tell if he is lying to himself is to look at his behaviours....which you refuse to discuss with any explanation or example by yourself of how his behaviours were honest.

The only reason you keep going down this track without providing examples (in context) or explaning (in detail, not just with a one line slogan) why his behaviours individually & collectively were 'honest' (as you claim) is you know how blantantly dishonest his phone call was - and you support it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You have absolutely no idea what radical leftist ideas are if you think anything democrats have proposed is radical. The real radicals are the nutball far right, the views you largely propound. they're the fascist authoritarian ones.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Sophistry.

Not at all. Courts don't find people innocent. They find people 'not guilty', meaning the charge was 'unable to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. Reasonable doubt in this kind of matter I would put at 97.5 - 98.5%. That still leaves at least a 97.5% chance he actually was trying to rig the election.

That's the problem. Just knowing someone is doing something doesn't mean it can be proven. That is why a finding of not guilty has nothing to do with:
- whether someone has committed the offence or not, and
- little to nothing to do with a conversation about a persons actual honesty.

But you know this. Your responses are just another attempt at avoiding the conversation - one that allows you to deceive yourself.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

your not dealing in reality is to do with what you won't face, and won't talk about.

Characterizing my rejection of your backwards and appalling mindset as "a refusal to deal in reality" is silly.

vikorr wrote:

Nope. You made a statement. When challenged you only made another statement. You provide no explanation, and no example - which is what backing up your statements means.

No. Backing up my statements means providing cites to support my facts when people request them.

vikorr wrote:

Each of your responses has been blatantly evasive.

No they haven't.

vikorr wrote:

Nope. You said he believed it to be true. Believing a lie you tell yourself is not honest.

Sophistry.

vikorr wrote:

The only way you can tell if he is lying to himself is to look at his behaviours....

If you want to burn some innocent women for witchcraft, the 16th century is back that way.

vikorr wrote:

which you refuse to discuss with any explanation by yourself of how his behaviours were honest.

You are correct to observe that I refuse to have a discussion based on the premise of your backwards thinking.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@oralloy,

history indicates no such progression. that's purely your own warped predilections, not what actually happens. Republicans, though, do seem to like "strong men" with authoritarian tendencies who really dislike the idea of government by the people for the people when they have a chance to weaken it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Characterizing my rejection of your backwards and appalling mindset as "a refusal to deal in reality" is silly.

In any event, I'm not characterising your 'rejection' of anything as a refusal to deal in reality. I am characterising your refusal to provide any explanation or example for your position as a refusal to deal in reality...because you know you can't substantiate your position.

It is however interesting that you are calling a discussion of honest / dishonest behaviours backwards. This is simply a self-serving evasion.

vikorr wrote:

Nope. You said he believed it to be true. Believing a lie you tell yourself is not honest.

oralloy wrote:

Sophistry.

Chanting substanceless slogans doesn't make it so. Provide explanation or admit you are being evasive.

vikorr wrote:

The only way you can tell if he is lying to himself is to look at his behaviours....

oralloy wrote:

If you want to burn some innocent women for witchcraft, the 16th century is back that way.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Not at all. Courts don't find people innocent. They find people 'not guilty', meaning the charge was 'unable to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. Reasonable doubt in this kind of matter I would put at 97.5 - 98.5%. That still leaves at least a 97.5% chance he actually was trying to rig the election.

There is a reason why civilized courts do not accept backwards thinking like yours as evidence of guilt.

vikorr wrote:

That's the problem. Just knowing someone is doing something doesn't mean it can be proven. That is why a finding of not guilty has nothing to do with:
- whether someone has committed the offence or not, and
- little to nothing to do with a conversation about a persons actual honesty.

If you can't prove it, you don't actually know it.

vikorr wrote:

But you know this. Your responses are just another attempt at avoiding the conversation - one that allows you to deceive yourself.

No deception on my end. But yes, I refuse to have a conversation based on your appalling and backwards ideas about "how honest people behave".

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

If you can't prove it, you don't actually know it.

Another justification for your not providing any explanation, example or discussion of the honesty or dishonesty of Trumps phone call. We aren't a court of law here. We are talking about human judgements of what is honest or dishonest, and whether or not we think he was dishonest. I say he was dishonest to the degree of engaging in corrupt behaviour. I give plenty of reasons for my opinion. You make statements, then refuse to back them up with any explanation or example....with the obvious motivation of been a fan...which in this context means you are being continually evasive.

That aside, your statement is a failure in logic. People can know many things that they aren't able to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Victims of crime face this problem all the time.

But for a discussion of someone elses honesty, which is more nebulous, you can only look at the individual and overall behaviours to come to a conclusion. And the multiple behaviours in that phone call lead to an incredibly strong conclusion.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No deception on my end. But yes, I refuse to have a conversation based on your appalling and backwards ideas about "how honest people behave".

ROFLOLOLOLOLOL....

Why I am not surprised you would refuse to discuss this. It is because you can't provide your own example or explanation on your own for how honest people behave (for use as comparison to Trumps behaviour). Because you know doing so will show just how dishonest and corrupt that phone call was.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

(incoming direction) Honesty is a willingness to look at/consider all angles & all aspects of an idea, and identify/accept valid aspects, regardless of our personal feelings or desires on the matter.

(outgoing direction) Honesty is the act of saying what you believe to be true in a way that you believe won't deceive others.

Those two are coupled (the incoming direction ensures honesty of belief, while the outgoing direction ensures honesty of communication). So describing honest behaviours will always results in behavioural descriptions with similarities, and as a principle is very easy to apply to any given situation.

For you oralloy - to claim that discussion of honest behaviours is backwards - is one of the most self serving pieces of nonsense I have ever heard you say.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know