Republicans, Once Outraged by the Mar-a-Lago Search, Become Quieter - The New York Times

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  342 comments

By:   nytimes

Republicans, Once Outraged by the Mar-a-Lago Search, Become Quieter - The New York Times
Some of former President Donald J. Trump's most loyal allies were initially focused elsewhere — a potentially telling reaction with ramifications for his political future.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



author-jonathan-weisman-thumbLarge-v2.png Aug. 26, 2022, 7:09 p.m. ETAug. 26, 2022, 7:09 p.m. ET

Jonathan Weisman

26trump-affidavit-politics-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale From left, Eric Trump, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr. and former President Donald J. Trump at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., last month. The former president's allies have been largely silent after the release of the affidavit.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

In the minutes and hours after the F.B.I.'s search of former President Donald J. Trump's residence in Florida this month, his supporters did not hesitate to denounce what they saw as a blatant abuse of power and outrageous politicization of the Justice Department.

But with the release of a redacted affidavit detailing the justification for the search, the former president's allies were largely silent, a potentially telling reaction with ramifications for his political future.

"I would just caution folks not to draw too many conclusions," Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, a Republican, said on Fox News. It was a starkly different admonition from his earlier condemnations of what he said were "politically motivated actions."

Some Republicans will no doubt rally around Mr. Trump and his claim that he is once again being targeted by a rogue F.B.I. that is still out to get him. His former acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said on Twitter that "this raid was, in fact, just about documents," which he called "simply outrageous." Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona and an ardent Trump ally, was on the right-wing broadcaster Newsmax denouncing the F.B.I. as politically biased, though he notably did not defend the former president's possession of highly classified documents.

But generally, even the most bombastic Republicans — Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Jim Jordan of Ohio — were at least initially focused elsewhere. Ms. Greene was posting on Friday about border "invasions." Ms. Boebert noted on Twitter the anniversary of the suicide bombing of U.S. service members at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan. Mr. Jordan was focused on an interview with Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder. None tweeted about the affidavit.

The accusations against Mr. Trump have become increasingly serious.

Classified documents dealing with matters such as Mr. Trump's correspondences with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un were stored in unsecured rooms at Mar-a-Lago, The New York Times reported this month. The untempered attacks on the F.B.I. after the initial search led to threats against federal law enforcement, opening up Republicans — long the self-proclaimed party of law and order — to charges from Democrats that they were trying to "defund" the agency.

And voters are again distracted by Mr. Trump in the political spotlight, even as Republicans try to direct their attention toward the economy and soaring inflation on a day when the Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell said efforts to control rising prices would exact pain on Americans.

All of this could mean that enough Republican voters grow weary of the division and drama around Mr. Trump and are ready to move on.

Little wonder, then, that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's adviser and deputy chief of staff, took to Fox News on Friday afternoon to plead for Mr. Trump to stop commenting on the F.B.I. investigation, for his own good and the good of his party.

"Let the election conversation get back to what it ought to be about," Mr. Rove said, "which is about inflation and the economy and the direction of the country and people's views of President Biden's competence."

Continue reading the main story


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

Who? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  JBB @1    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    one month ago

One can only hope that this will be the final straw that causes the GoP to wise up, detach the Trump parasite and start the healing process.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2    one month ago

"The New York Times editorial board called on Attorney General  Merrick Garland   to seek an indictment of former  President Trump   if “sufficient evidence” exists to establish his guilt “on a serious charge.”




I couldn't agree with the NY Times Editorial Board more. The problem is that I have this gut feeling that there won't be any indictment. It seems we only have a prosecution via leaks and the media that keeps this story elevated over the real issues that have plagued average Americans.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
The problem is that I have this gut feeling that there won't be any indictment. It seems we only have a prosecution via leaks and the media that keeps this story elevated over the real issues that have plagued average Americans.

That's hypocritical.

For months you flooded NT with seeds claiming that Durham had the goods on Clinton and insisted that the allegations in his filings were going to bring Clinton down. NONE of it had a fucking thing to do with 'the real issues that have plagued average Americans' yet you kept banging that drum. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago

Durham who? lol. 

You know whats really sad. He likely still thinks Durham has the goods on Democratic leaders and Comey and the FBI. Its too late to turn back now. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago
For months you flooded NT with seeds claiming that Durham had the goods on Clinton and insisted that the allegations in his filings were going to bring Clinton down.

Please show me.


NONE of it had a fucking thing to do with 'the real issues that have plagued average Americans' yet you kept banging that drum. 

Do you even know what those issues are?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    one month ago

What's really sad is thinking that the democrats can run against Trump in the midterms.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    one month ago
For months you flooded NT with seeds claiming that Durham had the goods on Clinton and insisted that the allegations in his filings were going to bring Clinton down. NONE of it had a fucking thing to do with 'the real issues that have plagued average Americans' yet you kept banging that drum. 

How about backing that claim up?

Please list the 'flood' of articles he seeded about Durham.

I am betting you just CAN'T BACK THAT CRAP UP.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    one month ago
Please show me.

Look at your avatar and search your own seeds Vic. 

Do you even know what those issues are?

I know that none of them have a fucking thing to do with what Durham is investigating. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    one month ago
Look at your avatar

I stared intently at it and it never did show me how many article (if any) he posted.

Looks like another baseless claim was made and was unable to be backed up.

Sigh.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one month ago
Looks like another baseless claim was made and was unable to be backed up.

Yep...I ran into that today, too.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    4 weeks ago
"For months you flooded NT with seeds claiming that Durham had the goods on Clinton and insisted that the allegations in his filings were going to bring Clinton down."

"Please show me."

You have got to be kidding.  Just about every day it was 'only a matter of time before the indictments came on the entire Obama administration'

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.10  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

as if his avatar wasn't enough of a reminder...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

But miraculously, not a soul claiming that could prove it.

Typical nonsense, always claiming stuff which won't or can't be proven.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    one month ago

Another nothing burger. jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

What is the 'nothing burger'?   The holding of TS/SCI classified files and not cooperating in their return?   If so, is there anything Trump has done that you would consider wrong?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    one month ago

"The holding of TS/SCI classified files and not cooperating in their return?"

I don't know if these allegations are true or not....and neither do you

"If so, is there anything Trump has done that you would consider wrong?"

Other than his governmental policies and accomplishments, which greatly benefited our country....

just about everything else he has said or done has been wrong

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    one month ago
I don't know if these allegations are true or not....and neither do you

As more evidence is released the more it is clear that the TS/SCI classified documents were NOT declassified.   Nobody has delivered any evidence that a declassification process occurred (and there is a formal process for this which includes a registration).   Further, the evidence shows that Trump was not cooperating on the return of additional documents.   The fact that he has tried to get them back is further evidence of this.

There is always the possibility that the evidence is wrong or some startling new evidence will emerge, but based on what we have seen thus far, there is now very little doubt that Trump was not cooperating on the return of classified TS/SCI documents.   It is interesting watching some cling to the remotest of possibilities in their ongoing defense of Trump.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    one month ago

After all the investigations, impeachments etc Trump has not been proven guilty of anything. Exactly like Hillary.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.3    one month ago

Is it your opinion that he has done nothing wrong?    I am not asking if he has been found guilty;  I am asking if he has done wrong.

For example, was it wrong for Trump to attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states or to coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?   Two examples of many.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    one month ago

LOL.  Forget it TiG, the Trumpsuckers will defend him even if he's behind bars. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.6  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    one month ago

I said nothing about Trump being wrong.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.6    one month ago
I said nothing about Trump being wrong.    

Yeah, Dennis, you have not said anything about Trump doing wrong.   That is the whole point of the question.

Which, as I expected, you dodged.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.8  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    4 weeks ago

I dodged nothing. Your question was irrevelant to my 3.1.1 comment to Greg.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

And you dodge yet again.    Odd that you seem unable to acknowledge that Trump has done wrong.

Was it wrong for Trump to attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states or to coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?   Two examples of many.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    4 weeks ago

Your question in nonsense. I know of no one who has not done wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.10    4 weeks ago

Then surely you will agree that it was wrong for Trump to:

  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors
 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.12  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    4 weeks ago

Cherry picking 2 alleged things from more than 18 months ago does not deserve an answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

You obviously do not know what 'cherry-picking' means.   I offered two of many examples.  I limited my comment to two to make this real simple and straightforward.   

You deflect ... poorly.   You refuse to stand up and deal with a very simple question.

Amazing observing someone who cannot bring himself to acknowledge that it is OBVIOUSLY wrong for Trump (or anyone) to:

  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors

Do you really think anyone is fooled by this blatantly obvious evasion of yours?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.12    4 weeks ago
Cherry picking 2 alleged things from more than 18 months ago does not deserve an answer.

Okay, let's deal with the present.   Was Trump wrong to hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home and to not cooperate with their return?    Was Trump wrong to ask they be returned to his home, thus proving that he was not cooperating with their return to the NARA?: 

“Oh great! It has just been learned that the FBI, in its now famous raid of Mar-a-Lago, took boxes of privileged ‘attorney-client’ material, and also ‘executive’ privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken,”   Trump said on his Truth Social site . “By copy of this TRUTH, I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!,” the former president said in the posting.
 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.15  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    4 weeks ago

I recognize the NY Post as a very biased rag and nothing more.

More than a year after Trump left office the government asked him for documents. He told them to take what they needed.  Trump said fine and they did.

Months later the government said they needed more documents immediately due to national security concerns on a Friday and yet did not come to get them until the next Monday.

All of a sudden on a Friday 18 months after Trump left office the documents were magically needed urgently due to national security concerns.

I have no confidence in a government agency that waits that long to get what they call national security.

The government has already admitted they inadvertently took things such as confidential client/lawyer. 

I do not believe this was done by accident. 

IMO, the timing of this is strictly political.  

 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.15    4 weeks ago
More than a year after Trump left office the government asked him for documents. He told them to take what they needed.  Trump said fine and they did.

That comment is utterly without facts. 

IMO, the timing of this is strictly political.  

Perhaps that's because you are willfully uninformed of the timeline. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.15    4 weeks ago

Dennis, I asked you two very simple, direct, and timely questions because you complained that my questions about suborning Pence and coercing Bowers were 18 months old (and thus you do not think they deserve an answer  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif ):

  1. Was Trump wrong to hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home?   
  2. Was Trump wrong to not cooperate in their return?

Instead of answering these questions with the only possible correct answer:  " Trump was wrong " you yet again refuse to acknowledge blatantly OBVIOUS wrongdoing by Trump and instead deflect with a tepid attack on the DoJ/FBI.

Even if your emotional conspiracy theory was correct, the key facts are:

  • Trump was holding classified (including TS/SCI) documents in his home.    That, Dennis, is against the law.    He is not even allowed to hold declassified government official documents since all of his presidential records fell under the legal custody of Biden on Jan 20, 2021.   Trump could only take personal documents.
  • Trump was NOT cooperating on the return of these documents.   This is evidenced strongly by the released warrant affidavit and the fact, as I noted, that Trump has publicly asked that these documents be returned to him.

That, Dennis, is wrongdoing .   There is no escaping this fact.   The refusal to even acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump is what keeps Trump relevant and largely in control of the GoP and thus continues to degrade the party.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    4 weeks ago
Was Trump wrong to ask they be returned to his home, thus proving that he was not cooperating with their return to the NARA?

It's not proof he's being uncooperative.  Given that there are documents that were taken fall under lawyer / client confidentiality, your presumption that demanding document returned is proof of him uncooperating is laughable.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.18    4 weeks ago
It's not proof he's being uncooperative.

The affidavit alone showed that Trump was not cooperating.   

There is no lawyer / client confidentiality that applies to classified documents and official presidential records.   All classified and official records are the property of and under the stewardship of the NARA.   It is illegal, not just wrong, for a PotUS to hold such records after leaving office.

All Trump could ask for is his personal records.   He did not do that, he asked for ALL of the taken records to be returned.


That established, was Trump wrong to:

  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home?   
  • not cooperate in their return?
  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.19    4 weeks ago
There is no lawyer / client confidentiality that applies to classified documents and official presidential records.

Do you know exactly what documents were taken?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.20    4 weeks ago

Deflection!   What matters, Jeremy, is that we know that classified TS/SCI level documents were being held at Trump's private residence.   We know that Trump has no right to hold those documents under any conditions.

Was Trump wrong to:

  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home?   
  • not cooperate in their return?
  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.21    4 weeks ago
Deflection! 

Only because I won't follow your narrative.  Now, I ask you a question.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.22    4 weeks ago

Refusal to acknowledge the obvious.   Refusal to answer direct questions.   Defense of Trump no matter how foolish.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.23    4 weeks ago

Still didn't answer my question.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.20    4 weeks ago
Do you know exactly what documents were taken?  

Why is it that you continue to ask TiG questions while ignoring the questions he asked you Jeremy? 

Now, Trump has admitted that some of the documents that were retrieved in the search were classified. The inventory of the boxes retrieved cite classified documents. 

Exactly what documents were taken will and should remain under seal. If Trump wants to release copies of what is returned to him, he has every right to do so. Other than that, there are US statutes that mandate the handling of the rest of the documents. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.24    4 weeks ago

I answered your irrelevant deflection question.   No, Jeremy, I do not have the official list of documents taken from Trump's residence.   That is not public information.

But what I do know is what I stated @3.1.21:

TiG@3.1.21 ☞ What matters, Jeremy, is that we know that classified TS/SCI level documents were being held at Trump's private residence.   We know that Trump has no right to hold those documents under anyconditions.

Was Trump wrong to:

  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home?   
  • not cooperate in their return?
  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @3.1.25    4 weeks ago
Why is it that you continue to ask TiG questions while ignoring the questions he asked you Jeremy? 

There was no question ask of me.  On the other hand, there was a question posed to TiG that he seems to be ignoring.  And I'm pretty sure TiG is adult enough to not need you to come to his rescue.

Exactly what documents were taken will and should remain under seal.

So you don't know exactly what documents were taken and are parroting what others told you.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.28  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.26    4 weeks ago
I answered your irrelevant deflection question.   No, Jeremy, I do not have the official list of documents taken from Trump's residence.

No you didn't.  You just now answered it.  And based on your answer you are, in fact, playing parrot with (again, not surprisingly) no fact.  Have a nice day.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @3.1.25    4 weeks ago
Why is it that you continue to ask TiG questions while ignoring the questions he asked you Jeremy? 

It amazes me that so many flat out refuse to even acknowledge that Trump has done wrong.   They attempt to defend Trump with transparent deflection and faux obtuseness and apparently are under the delusion that such tactics actually work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.28    4 weeks ago
And based on your answer you are, in fact, playing parrot with (again, not surprisingly) no fact. 

Again, you play these stupid, dishonest games.   You ask an irrelevant question and when you get the answer you seek, you declare that somehow this means that all the facts I have provided don't actually exist.

Then, thinking that you have fooled people into believing you have actually made a point, you drop the mic and run away.

Pathetic.

Do you really think that by avoiding answering direct questions about Trump doing wrong that you have accomplished anything other than demonstrating that Trump did indeed do wrong and you have no defense for it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.27    4 weeks ago
There was no question ask of me. 

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif    Right here @3.1.19 I asked you a question with four parts:

TiG @3.1.19

That established, was Trump wrong to:

  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home?   
  • not cooperate in their return?
  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.18    4 weeks ago

Under the PRA [which is a statute], Trump and his staff are REQUIRED to segregate personal documents from Presidential documents. The DOJ also told Trump to segregate all of the documents that were responsive to the subpoena and more properly secure those documents. 

In short, it's on Trump that 18 months after leaving office if his personal documents were intermixed with Presidential or classified documents. It was on Trump to mitigate any harm he may suffer by making sure that his shit was filed properly. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.33  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    4 weeks ago

See 3.1.10

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.30    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.35  Trout Giggles  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.33    4 weeks ago

You specialize in nonsense

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.36  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.29    4 weeks ago

Read 3.1.10 and stop asking the same question over and over. You have my answer.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.37  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.38  dennis smith  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.35    4 weeks ago

Likewise

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.39  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    4 weeks ago

There are people who think ANY investigation or for that matter , criticism, of Trump is political.  They are the hopeless cases that infect the political right these days. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.40  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.36    4 weeks ago

Hahaha....Saying you don't care for the question is not answering...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.41  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.36    4 weeks ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.34    4 weeks ago

Because the reason Trump remains relevant and harmful is because many continue to defend  him no matter how foolish.  

What is it about Trump that causes people to fall on their own swords for him?   

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.43  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.39    4 weeks ago
There are people who think ANY investigation or for that matter , criticism, of Trump is political.

FLASHBACK:

What was any investigation and criticism of Hillary called ?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.44  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.42    4 weeks ago
Because the reason Trump remains relevant

..... Is because without anything TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, the media doesn't have much else to report on to keep it's viewers !

Viewership eats it up !

What is there "WITHOUT" TRUMP ?

Even Democrat Politicians don't have anything to run on, "WITHOUT" TRUMP...... and MAGA "Semi-Facists" !

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.36    4 weeks ago

Deflection is not an answer.   Running from the question is not an answer.  It is simply a demonstration of a Trump supporter who cannot even acknowledge specific examples of clear wrongdoing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.43    4 weeks ago

Get back to me when Hillary tries to overthrow our government like Trump did. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.47  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.46    4 weeks ago
Get back to me when Hillary tries to overthrow our government like Trump did. 

Trump was there ?

That didn't answer my simple question though:

"What was any investigation and criticism of Hillary called" ?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.48  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.31    4 weeks ago

Oh cry me a river.  I ask you a question, you couldn't answer it thus claiming it as "deflection". 

[deleted]

[Have a nice day.]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.49  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.34    4 weeks ago
Removed for context

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.50  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.48    4 weeks ago

So you have nothing to say, or nothing you can say so you jump to insults.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.48    4 weeks ago
Oh cry me a river.  I ask you a question, you couldn't answer it thus claiming it as "deflection". 

Could not answer it?   A blatant lie.   Even when I answer your irrelevant question you deny the answer.   Pathetic.

In contrast you have repeatedly refused to stand up and answer my direct, relevant questions.

Then you parrot exactly what every other TDS driven person here on NT has been chirping without proof.  You aren't anybody of any importance to me and your demands come off as childish foot stomping.

Parrot?   You think it is parroting to report the facts of this case that have been publicly disclosed?:

  • It is a fact that the documents taken from Trump's home included classified TS/SCI documents.    There is not a shred of evidence that shows any of these were declassified;  just Trump's laughable claim of a 'standing order'.   Declassification is a formal process with a formal register.   Deliver the record of declassified documents if you wish to argue that these TS/SCI documents are declassified.
  • It is a fact that Trump (and every other former PotUS) is not allowed to hold such documents.   In fact, per the PRA, no PotUS is allowed any official records (classified or declassified) ... only personal documents.
  • It is a fact that Trump was not cooperating with NARA on the return.   Read the affidavit.
  • It is a fact that Trump has asked for all the confiscated documents to be returned.    Not just personal documents.   Asking for TS/SCI classified documents be returned is proof that he was not cooperating.

These are all well-established facts drawn from publicly available information.  You, laughably, simply declare that all these inconvenient facts are just emotional rhetoric.

It is obvious (as it has been for a while) that you will blindly ignore anything that illustrates Trump has engaged in wrongdoing.    

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.52  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.1.50    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.53  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.51    4 weeks ago

Like I told you.  Your "questions" are based on incomplete information that somebody told you.  when you have all the information we'll revisit this.  Until then, have a nice day.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.27    4 weeks ago
There was no question ask of me. 

Everyone can see for themselves that TiG asked you 4 questions, 3 times Jeremy. Why are YOU ignoring them? 

On the other hand, there was a question posed to TiG that he seems to be ignoring. 

He didn't ignore it, he directly addressed it. 

And I'm pretty sure TiG is adult enough to not need you to come to his rescue.

My question to you, which I note your failed to answer, has nothing to do with rescuing TiG. 

So you don't know exactly what documents were taken and are parroting what others told you.

First of all, stick your supercilious bullshit where the sun don't shine. 

Secondly, any comment I make about the documents retrieved from Trump are based on documents related to the case, in particular the affidavit and the property receipt and NARA correspondence with Trump. The specific CONTENT of some of the retrieved documents may never be made public and rightly so.

As far as the Presidential documents retrieved, the Archivist and Trump negotiate their release. I await Trump waiving restrictions on access to his Presidential papers. What color crayon do you think is his favorite? 

BTFW Jeremy, the Judge will soon be receiving an accurate inventory of the retrieved documents. Want to bet whether Trump's lawyers will file a motion to unseal that list? I bet NOT.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.18    4 weeks ago

I note that you ignored Trump's demand of the return of ‘executive’ privileged material'.

Will you at least admit that Trump had no right to have those documents and has no right to the return of those documents? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.56  Dulay  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.1.43    4 weeks ago

On the right, meritorious. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.57  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.52    4 weeks ago

Delusions of grandeur. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
3.1.58  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Dulay @3.1.56    4 weeks ago
On the right, meritorious. 

So Flat of a comment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.53    4 weeks ago
when you have all the information we'll revisit this.

Another bullshit dodge; a common tactic.   When unable to put forth a real argument there is always the tactic of foolishly pretending that there are no facts.   No matter how much evidence, there is the demand for more ... and even the demand for proof.   When facts are presented, they are dismissed as hearsay, etc.

Obviously you cannot bring yourself to even acknowledge that Trump has done wrong ... even with very specific, clear questions (I could ask more than a dozen but I have listed four).    Was Trump wrong to:

  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents in his home?   
  • not cooperate in their return?
  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?

The answer to each is an obvious 'yes'.    For those who will honestly and objectively consider these questions, the answer would be 'yes' regardless of who the former PotUS was or his party.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.60  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @3.1.55    4 weeks ago
Will you at least admit that Trump had no right to have those documents and has no right to the return of those documents?

No.  I'm not going to play into your hissy fit.  We don't know exactly what documents so making the determination of what he can maintain and what he can't is purely speculation.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.61  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.60    4 weeks ago

So, you demand top secret info made public?

Because Trump had boxes of our top secrets.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.62  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.1.61    4 weeks ago

Bullshit. Prove it. PSSST you can't cuz we don't know what he had.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.63  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3.1.61    4 weeks ago

I'm not demanding anything be made public.  It never even crossed my mind.

And they took boxes of what we are TOLD are Top Secret material.  How much of it actually is we don't know.  To even try to say it all is Top Secret is pure speculation.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.64  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.63    4 weeks ago

The FBI seized top secret files in a search of former US President Donald Trump's estate in Florida this week, documents show.

Agents removed 11 sets of documents, including some marked "TS/SCI", a designation for material that could cause "exceptionally grave" damage to US national security.

15 boxes and a whopping 11 files. sonofabitch

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.60    4 weeks ago
We don't know exactly what documents so making the determination of what he can maintain and what he can't is purely speculation.

That is ridiculous.   The public will never know the specifics of these documents because they are classified.   You are putting forth an impossible condition and the reason is obvious;   you have no argument.    

The consistent information is that some of these documents were classified and some even at the TS/SCI level.   Unless you have good reason to believe that ALL of the sources reporting this information are wrong, your refusal to accept reality is irrational.   I am confident you will fail to offer a good reason for rejecting reality.

Further, per the PRA, no PotUS is allowed to take any official documents.   Those documents immediately are under the custody and control of the sitting PotUS.   So Trump is wrong to hold even unclassified official documents;  he can only legally hold his personal documents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.62    4 weeks ago

@3.1.65 applies to you to.   You are irrationally rejecting consistent information that Trump was holding TS/SCI classified documents.   Based on what do you defy all the sources who consistently provide this fact?

If one must literally reject consistent information in order to defend Trump is that not a sign that maybe one should stop trying to defend the indefensible?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.64    4 weeks ago

Did you read what you quoted?:

... including some marked "TS/SCI", a designation for material that could cause "exceptionally grave" damage to US national security.

Do you deny the above?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.63    4 weeks ago
And they took boxes of what we are TOLD are Top Secret material.

Guess what, everything we know we are 'told' by some other human being.    

Your excuse for denying that Trump was holding TS/SCI classified documents is feeble and absurd.   How pathetic to resort to the equivalent of "I do not believe anything that is told to me by another human being" since we all know that is NOT TRUE as evidenced by your immediate leaping on anything negative of the D party and Biden.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.69  seeder  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.67    4 weeks ago

Our CIA assets worldwide have gone missing,  either from fear their identities were revealed by Trump, or else they were possibly killed...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.70  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.67    4 weeks ago
... including some marked "TS/SCI", a designation for material that could cause "exceptionally grave" damage to US national security.

HOW can ANYONE not see how Donald risked MUCH, forcing the DOJ to act. It is beyond comical watching them continue to still squirm, due to one fat giant LYING worm

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.71  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.66    4 weeks ago

Didn't defy a fucking thing. Once the smoke clears we will know at least the nature of what the documents were. It will come from somewhere I guarantee it. And yes, it is wrong for him to do it.

In this case, you are correct. In others, not always as much as you wish you were yet continue to beat the topic to death just so people will get tired of answering the continual battery of things NOT said or written. It's tiring and quite boring.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.1.72  afrayedknot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.71    4 weeks ago

“And yes, it is wrong for him to do it.”

The bottom line…meaning any attempt, any attempt, to minimize this irrefutable fact is not constructive. In some inexplicable sense of fealty, it is totally destructive in intent. And that is the most frightening aspect of this whole ordeal. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.73  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.71    4 weeks ago
Once the smoke clears we will know at least the nature of what the documents were.

We already know the nature of the documents.   If you do not acknowledge that some of the documents were classified as TS/SCI then you are denying reality.

If you do acknowledge this then your post @3.1.62 makes no sense.

No facts have emerged that contradict the DoJ/FBI announcement that classified TS/SCI documents were in Trump's residence.   Without such contradiction it is irrational for people to argue nuh'uh.

I will take your words to mean that you acknowledge the presence of classified TS/SCI documents and that you acknowledge that Trump holding them was wrong.

If that is not your position, then clear it up.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.74  igknorantzrulz  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.72    4 weeks ago

baby steps

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.75  TᵢG  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.70    4 weeks ago

My word is:  'pathetic'.    Generally, this blind, irrational, counter-productive support for Trump is IMO irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @3.1.69    4 weeks ago

Do you have a source for this?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.77  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.68    4 weeks ago
Guess what, everything we know we are 'told' by some other human being

Correct.  Everything YOU know YOU are being told by somebody else.  Me?  Don't believe a damn thing without documentation. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.78  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.75    4 weeks ago

yea, but you know me, never wanting to ruffle feathers, as i search for words to graciously disagree..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.77    4 weeks ago
Don't believe a damn thing without documentation. 

Documentation is simply a physical representation of words told to you by a human being.

And BULLSHIT on your belief based solely on documentation.   Any bad news of Biden and you are all over it given just a whiff.   

Give us all a break, Jeremy.   

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.80  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.73    4 weeks ago
If that is not your position, then clear it up.

Excuse me but just WHO in the hell do you think you are?

As far as the nature, we know they are classified and some more secret than others. THAT is what I meant. Is it national security? Are they the rally schedule? I mean at least a categorization is what I meant.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.81  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.79    4 weeks ago
Documentation is simply a physical representation of words told to you by a human being.

And that is proof of something.  FAR more than any goddamn thing you've given me to date.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.82  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.73    4 weeks ago
If you do not acknowledge that some of the documents were classified as TS/SCI

So which is is.  All the documents were TS/SCI or SOME of the documents were TS/SCI.  Get your shit straight.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.80    4 weeks ago
As far as the nature, we know they are classified and some more secret than others. THAT is what I meant. Is it national security? Are they the rally schedule? I mean at least a categorization is what I meant.

Please inform Jeremy of this fact.    You have repeatedly voted up his repeated refusal to acknowledge this fact.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.82    4 weeks ago
So which is is.  All the documents were TS/SCI or SOME of the documents were TS/SCI.  Get your shit straigh

Some of the documents were classified as TS/SCI.   Others were classified at lower levels.   Some were personal.

My 'shit' has been straight this entire time.   You need to read more carefully.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.85  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.82    4 weeks ago

Who said ALL ?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.86  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.84    4 weeks ago

Like I said - Get your shit straight.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.87  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @3.1.72    4 weeks ago
it is totally destructive in intent

One Mr. James Comey has demonstrated in the distant past that you can't prove intent. Why he had them, I don't know and neither does anyone outside his circle. What the beef is, as someone else has posted elsewhere, why did they wait so long? The first go around they should have done more than just accept what they were given. Why was there no inventory from the WH as to what was boxed up when he vacated is a total irresponsible mystery to me? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.88  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.81    4 weeks ago

It is obvious that you will reject anything provided to you.   That is what is so pathetic ... your comments blatantly defy reality.    One of the most bizarre displays of blind defense of Trump I have witnessed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.86    4 weeks ago

Do you really think that people cannot comprehend the exchange here?    You have absolutely no argument and are just tossing out whatever nonsense comes to mind.   It is pathetic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.90  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.87    4 weeks ago
Why he had them, I don't know and neither does anyone outside his circle.

Correct, we do not know Trump's intent.   My focus is on what he was holding and the degree to which he was cooperating in the return.

What the beef is, as someone else has posted elsewhere, why did they wait so long?

Speculating about the timeline is almost pointless.   It is great for dreaming up conspiracy theories but none of that matters.   What matters more than anything else here is:

  • Was Trump holding classified documents at his residence?
  • Was Trump cooperating in their return?

The answers, based on consistent information publicly available, are:   'yes' and 'no', respectively.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.91  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.88    4 weeks ago

You haven't provided me anything except rhetoric.  So when you have something more substantial than your lips flapping come find me.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.92  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.90    4 weeks ago
Correct, we do not know Trump's intent.   My focus is on what he was holding and the degree to which he was cooperating in the return.

Perhaps he didn't know what he had. I am quite sure he didn't stand over those who were doing the packing. And what is to say someone in that group didn't have nefarious intent to later be able to nail him? Whoever knew evidently blew the whistle. As his popularity was gaining a small bit and he wasn't going away and it looked as though he may be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat in 2024, they decided it was time to pull the plug and use that knowledge to further the attempts at keeping him from running. THAT is one thing we will never know. Who pulled that plug.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.93  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.89    4 weeks ago
You have absolutely no argument and are just tossing out whatever nonsense comes to mind.

If you do some research you might be semi-believable.  But then again that would ruin your whole narrative.  You've claimed the documents were classified without all the information then you expect everybody to take you at your word?  Sorry skippy, not going to happen.  

Get your shit together.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.94  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.92    4 weeks ago
Perhaps he didn't know what he had.

Then he is a moron.

I am quite sure he didn't stand over those who were doing the packing.

Trump went through the documents himself last year.

And what is to say someone in that group didn't have nefarious intent to later be able to nail him?

Anything is possible.   I could speculate that the FBI planted classified TS/SCI documents to entrap Trump.   What is the point of such speculation?

Whoever knew evidently blew the whistle. As his popularity was gaining a small bit and he wasn't going away and it looked as though he may be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat in 2024, they decided it was time to pull the plug and use that knowledge to further the attempts at keeping him from running. THAT is one thing we will never know. Who pulled that plug.

Good grief Jim, sometimes things are as they seem.    Trump was holding classified documents (some TS/SCI) at his residence and was not cooperating in their return.   That is the net of all public information we have seen.   Trump's strongest 'defense' is his claim that they were all declassified.   That is false.   If these documents were declassified then they would be registered as such;  no information has emerged even hinting that these documents were registered as declassified.   His next best 'defense' is that he was cooperating.   But the affidavit shows he was absolutely NOT cooperating (and NARA was bending over backwards to accommodate him) and then he stupidly asks for the documents to be returned to his residence (which shows that he was NOT cooperating in their return to NARA).

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.95  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.71    4 weeks ago
It's tiring and quite boring.

... as is the defense of trump who brought this all on himself. he illegally and willfully took federal documents that he knew did not belong to him. he refused to cooperate on numerous attempts by NARA to rectify the situation and obstructed the process of the feds to retrieve the documents. he didn't return all of the documents, lied about it, and reboxed and moved some documents. ... and now he's playing the victim card.

NARA, the FBI, and the DOJ, aren't a bunch of contractors that you can stiff payment on, stall with lawsuits, and wait for them to fold up their tents and walk away. average people have done serious prison time for less. you can either support the rule of law for all, equally in america, or you don't. as far as I'm concerned, current trump supporters have passed the point of no return.

stating that you're all about law and order, and the constitution, and wanting to see politicians held accountable, except for your guy, is not the best exhibition of any kind of laws that I'm aware of. as far as I'm concerned, current trump supporters have passed the point of no return in his defense.

whatever political activities you may have thought were criminal that happened in administrations past, are old news. there were ample opportunities to have them addressed and rectified back then, but this is present day, and these actions are blatant and undeniable. letting this clown off the hook, when he's been caught dead to rights, will do more harm to this country than letting him skate. this is an historic moment in america and our constitution. the whole world is watching.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.96  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.93    4 weeks ago
You've claimed the documents were classified without all the information then you expect everybody to take you at your word? 

I am not the one making the claim;  that is the consistent information provided to the public.     Dulay, myself, et.al. have provided links to this information but you could do so just as easily yourself.

It is pathetic watching someone blatantly deny reality in a feeble, ineffective defense of Trump.

You are the one who needs to provide support for your nuh'uh denials.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.97  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @3.1.40    4 weeks ago

My answer is was very clear 3.1.1

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.98  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.93    4 weeks ago
If you do some research you might be semi-believable.  But then again that would ruin your whole narrative.  You've claimed the documents were classified without all the information then you expect everybody to take you at your word?  Sorry skippy, not going to happen.  

Maybe Just Jim will be gracious enough to explain reality to you:

JustJim @3.1.80As far as the nature, we know they are classified and some more secret than others.
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.99  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.96    4 weeks ago
I am not the one making the claim

Triy again.   3.1.65

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.100  dennis smith  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.86    4 weeks ago

An impossible request

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.101  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.98    4 weeks ago

And that would change my statement in what way again?  

  • You don't have all the information.
  • You are flapping your lips about something you don't have all the information for.

Those are two facts I've presented you 2 facts that you just can't seem to grasp.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.102  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.98    4 weeks ago

Context. Not all of the documents recovered/confiscated are classified. Using what I posted in the way you just did makes it sound as though I was saying that all were classified.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.103  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.97    4 weeks ago

Your answer was @3.1.3 and it simply stated the obvious:  that Trump has not yet been found legally guilty.

You will state the obvious but refuse to acknowledge that Trump has done wrong.   

You refuse to answer ⇒  Was it was wrong for Trump to:

  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?
  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents at his residence?
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.102    4 weeks ago
Context. Not all of the documents recovered/confiscated are classified.

I never claimed ALL the documents were classified.    That came from Jeremy trying to put words in my mouth.

I have stated, repeatedly, that Trump held classified (some TS/SCI level) documents at his residence.

You agree with this.   (And why not, this is thus far highly consistent with no disputes.)

Jeremy denies it.

You and Jeremy disagree on this point.    Jeremy rejects all net information on this matter.    Jeremy demands a list of the confiscated documents in order to 'believe' that classified documents were indeed found at Trump's residence.   He implicitly would believe that document but does not believe all the information, affidavit, etc. publicly available today.

That is beyond irrational.   Maybe you can reach him.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.105  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.51    4 weeks ago

That's why certain posters are on ignore for me.  Better for the blood pressure and more satisfying to beat your head against the wall than 'debating' with certain posters.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.106  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.105    4 weeks ago

Well the worst thing to do with me is to engage in intellectual dishonesty.   As the dishonesty rises so will my diligence to expose the dishonesty at every turn.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.107  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.95    4 weeks ago
"... as is the defense of trump who brought this all on himself. he illegally and willfully took federal documents that he knew did not belong to him. he refused to cooperate on numerous attempts by NARA to rectify the situation and obstructed the process of the feds to retrieve the documents. he didn't return all of the documents, lied about it, and reboxed and moved some documents. ... and now he's playing the victim card.

NARA, the FBI, and the DOJ, aren't a bunch of contractors that you can stiff payment on, stall with lawsuits, and wait for them to fold up their tents and walk away. average people have done serious prison time for less. you can either support the rule of law for all, equally in america, or you don't. as far as I'm concerned, current trump supporters have passed the point of no return.

stating that you're all about law and order, and the constitution, and wanting to see politicians held accountable, except for your guy, is not the best exhibition of any kind of laws that I'm aware of. as far as I'm concerned, current trump supporters have passed the point of no return in his defense.

whatever political activities you may have thought were criminal that happened in administrations past, are old news. there were ample opportunities to have them addressed and rectified back then, but this is present day, and these actions are blatant and undeniable. letting this clown off the hook, when he's been caught dead to rights, will do more harm to this country than letting him skate. this is an historic moment in america and our constitution. the whole world is watching."

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

Have I told you lately that I jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg you for your truth and honesty and handing people their asses so well?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.108  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.106    4 weeks ago

and as you expose it, they develop more, in their dark rooms, where reality is apparently groomed, annd when light is shown, negativity exposed....   and not all that diffiCult, to picture

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.109  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.106    4 weeks ago

You certainly do your due diligence.  I applaud your efforts, as usual, that fall on completely deaf ears.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.110  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.97    4 weeks ago

So your answer is someone else's answer....

Ok, if that works for you.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Silent
3.1.111  George  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.106    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.112  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.109    4 weeks ago

And I find it amazing that anyone would present themselves so foolishly as to defend Trump no matter how damning the evidence.

To not even acknowledge that Trump has done wrong is a perfect litmus test for blind partisanship that will cavalierly toss honesty and credibility to the wind.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.113  Ender  replied to  George @3.1.111    4 weeks ago

Who do you think you are? Calling people bias while bringing your own bias, while not countering anything he said, only condescension.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.114  igknorantzrulz  replied to  George @3.1.111    4 weeks ago
With the condescension and arrogance contained in this comment, i'm absolutely shocked that this site never grows. 

I'm Curious George, did you ever find a Monkey's Aunt, or only till you say uncle, because pointing out, non dramatically, the FACTS, should in know way be considered condescending ewe on your weigh, where weight is holding farr too many down.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.115  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @3.1.113    4 weeks ago
Who do you think you are?

Bigshot ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.116  JohnRussell  replied to  George @3.1.111    4 weeks ago

These are ALL the words you typed into your comment. 

Where in any of this is there a fact based approach or a factual rebuttal of what you were allegedly rebutting?

Your comment is all fluff. 

Deleted for context - sandy

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.117  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.116    4 weeks ago

sounds like a bigshot to me

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.118  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.101    4 weeks ago
 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.119  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.103    4 weeks ago

See 3.1.10. I know of NO ONE that has not done wrong and yes that includes Trump.

Do you know of anyone who has not done wrong? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.120  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.60    4 weeks ago
No.  I'm not going to play into your hissy fit. 

It does not surprise me that you characterize a relevant cogent question as a 'hissy fit' Jeremy. 

We don't know exactly what documents so making the determination of what he can maintain and what he can't is purely speculation.

Again, we may never know exactly what documents were retrieved Jeremy.

Yet your comments show a desperation to deny what we DO know about the documents. 

We know that many of the documents were clearly marked classified. 

We know that many of the documents were governed by the PRA. 

We know that Trump defied a grand jury subpoena requiring him to turn over EVERY classified document in his possession. 

We know that AFTER Trump's lawyers swore that all of the documents were turned over, and Trump was instructed to sequester, store and secure all of the documents he retained in the storage room, video shows that Trump had boxes and/or documents moved out of storage. 

Oh, and we sure as fuck CAN make a determination of what he can 'maintain'. 

Trump has NO right to retain ANY of the documents I cited above. Trump no longer holds ANY level of security clearance and has no right to see or 'maintain' classified documents. 

Trump claimed that an 'extensive search' was done to ensure that all of the responsive documents were returned. Either that is an overt lie or Trump is delusional or BOTH. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
3.1.121  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @3.1.110    4 weeks ago

See 3.1.10 which answers the question. Take your snark elsewhere

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.122  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.63    4 weeks ago

So how many Top Secret documents do you propose we give Trump a pass on Jeremy? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.123  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.121    4 weeks ago

A keep away from a runaround Sue...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.124  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.81    4 weeks ago

If you were interested in documentation, you would have already READ all of the documents. 

'WE' all know that you have NOT. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.125  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.119    4 weeks ago
I know of NO ONE that has not done wrong and yes that includes Trump.

You yet again deflect from the question.   I did not ask if Trump has done anything wrong in his lifetime;  that would be a stupid question.   I asked you this:

TiG @3.1.103 ☞ Was it was   wrong  for Trump to:
  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Bowers to submit alternate (fake) electors?
  • hold classified (especially TS/SCI) documents at his residence?

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Trump has engaged in wrongdoing in these three examples?

Do you think that refusing to acknowledge the obvious is a defense for Trump?    256

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.126  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.91    4 weeks ago

There is overwhelming evidence that no amount of additional hand holding will affect your posit Jeremy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.127  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.92    4 weeks ago

Jim, Trump has drawn out this 'issue' since May, 2021 when he was informed that the NARA KNEW that Presidential papers were missing. 

They found classified documents in Trump's desk. For this 'blame the packers' scenario to hold water, Trump still has to explain who took those documents out to the boxes and put them in his desk drawer AND why he kept them AFTER he received the Grand Jury subpoena. 

In his motion for a Special Master, Trump claimed that they conducted an 'extensive' review of the documents he had. In June, Trump's lawyers singed an affidavit stating that no more classified documents were @ MAL. 

It stretches credulity to posit that Trump was utterly clueless about the documents he had. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.128  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.115    4 weeks ago

That brings back memories. . .

Mr. Bigshot!

Who do you think you are?

Some folks are more like Mr. Bigsnot, eh?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
3.1.129  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.128    4 weeks ago

I love that song. It's one of my favorites. And it fits a good many others besides Trump. However, Trump is without doubt the all time worst of the bunch.The others that fits that description did not steal Top Secret and Classified documents like Trump did. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.1.130  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.102    4 weeks ago
Using what I posted in the way you just did makes it sound as though I was saying that all were classified.

No it doesn't.  It makes you sound reasonable and thoughtful.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.131  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.107    4 weeks ago

right back at you.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.132  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.130    4 weeks ago

ouch

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.1.133  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.121    4 weeks ago

'Son, I know you did wrong, but everyone does wrong so no worries, carry on.' /s

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.1.134  Thomas  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.115    4 weeks ago

Jar of Hearts- Christina Perry 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1.135  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Thomas @3.1.134    4 weeks ago

I know I'm closing in on 60 but I must be a child at heart or have some hearing loss from all the concerts I went to in the 80's and 90', but I can't not hear "collecting your jar of farts" in that song...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @3.2    one month ago

Is this an established fact?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.1    one month ago
Is this an established fact?

Based on my personal experience, I would fact check anything claimed.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.3  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.2.3    one month ago

Better to rely on memes than the nonsensical misinformation that conservatives hear on right wing media. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.5  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one month ago
etter to rely on memes than the nonsensical misinformation that conservatives hear on right wing media

Not sure about right wing media John, but I ask...

Is it similar to posters seeding hundreds, if not thousands, of seeds about Trump "we got him now" seeds, zero of which have been true or come to fruition?

Like that, John?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.1    one month ago
Is this an established fact?

No, no it isn't. It's a pie in the sky dream (read fucking lie) and that is all.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.2    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 weeks ago

That's nothingberder and you are incorrect.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.4  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 weeks ago

Right.  If it were Obama you would have had a complete melt down

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4  Tacos!    one month ago

It's like I said the day of the raid: This will get hashed out over time. Anger and judgment are premature. We can speculate, but that's about it. DOJ clearly had probable cause for a search, but that doesn't mean Trump or anyone else is actually guilty of a crime. We have to see what they found, how it came to be where it was, and whether or not it's all truly problematic under the law. That's going to take time.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

Why is the standard some people want to judge Trump by  "what has he been convicted of?".   He is the worst person to ever hold the office of president of the United States . Isnt that enough? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

I believe, when U start your own Cult, U get to sub the Standards, to the bottom of the ocean, and then LOWER

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.2  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.1    one month ago

If I can attempt to understand this.

You are correct. The cult of climate change fits this to a tee.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.2    one month ago
The cult of climate change fits this to a tee.

So the supposed "cult of climate change" is made up of the majority who agree with 97% of climate scientists. And the supposed non-cultists are a minority of indoctrinated conservatives who have banded together to resist the mainstream consensus, reject basic facts and scientific data so as to embrace a discredited theory consisting of unsupported alternative facts and/or religious beliefs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    one month ago

Your post suggest that you don't have even clue one about the 'cult of climate change' he was referring to.

But kudos for working so many descriptive words into your rant about conservatives, it never gets old!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    one month ago
97% of climate scientists

You do realize this list includes Bill Nye, correct. He is not even a scientist by trade.

As far as cultists, I am referring to those that believe the earth will cease to exist in 12......er...10 and a half years without proof, and base all of their decisions on what they believe is caused by climate change....like televangelists, the climate cult is based on nothing more than lining their pockets. 

But nice attempt to blame conservatives for leftist failures, but it, too, was a failure..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.5    one month ago
I am referring to those that believe the earth will cease to exist in 12......er...10 and a half years

Cease to exist ... within 12 years?   That is a new one.   Must be a very obscure cult.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.7  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.6    one month ago

It may be obscure, but here it is from the horse's (no pun intended) mouth of one of the cult's highest ranking leader.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address/

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.7    one month ago

It is ridiculous to take one individual's view (especially a young politician) and present it as a significant scientific voice.

Rather, consider well founded opinions such as this: 

Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' [ 12 ], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land' [ 13 ].
Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [ 14 ]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @4.1.7    one month ago

One person, likely engaging in hyperbole, is your "cult"?

Ok.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.10  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.8    one month ago

I never said that humans are not the cause of some warming of the earth, however, cultists, like those who follow AOC, and there are many, believe that we must take drastic measures to combat this warming and do EVERYTHING NOW...

That is not the case. We will have EV, and be weaned off fossil fuels, and most people will accept this, once the technology makes these moves affordable to the average American. 60-70 thousand dollars for an EV plus charging, which is powered mostly by fossil fuels, are out of reach for many.

My 4.1.5 was to easily correct Dismayed Patriot, who somehow fit his hatred of conservatives into his rant.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.11  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.9    one month ago
One person, likely engaging in hyperbole, is your "cult"?

No, AOC has over 13 million followers on twitter. Are all of them real? I don't know, but not likely. Most of them that are real believe in that same hyperbole.

BTW, I thought I was on ignore. You sure did make a big stink about me replying to you in the not too distant past.

Is this another instance of "You are on ignore, but I just took you off to reply to this comment, then back on ignore you go?"

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.1.12  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.10    one month ago

“like those who follow AOC…”

Denial it is then…citing a convenient opposition target while ignoring the overwhelming scientific proof.

Political point made, illogical point dismissed. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.13  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @4.1.12    one month ago
olitical point made, illogical point dismissed. 

[deleted]

Again, I never said humans are not responsible for some of the warming, however, AOC has 13 million followers, close to 5 percent of the population of the US, and most of them believe in what she spews, as idiotic as it is.

That is a cult.

Class dismissed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.1.11    one month ago

Some will continue to attack while they ignore what one of the Democrats' leading figures says. 

Does All Gore ring any bells with the cult deniers?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @4.1.11    one month ago
No, AOC has over 13 million followers on twitter.

This assumes that all of one's social media followers believe every word that comes out of her mouth, or are even her supporters.  That's a very questionable assumption.

BTW, I thought I was on ignore.

Meta derail, but please provide a quote of the comment in which I've said so.  Having you on ignore would impede my ability to moderate.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.14    one month ago

Al Gore is the top leader of this cult.

He has flipped flopped and spun so much on what he thinks is happening to the earth.

First it was global cooling, and when that was proven bullshit, it changed to global warming, and when there was actual push back with data, he decided to call it climate change.

This from the leader of the cultists that has a larger carbon footprint than many large neighborhoods put together.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.17  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.15    one month ago
This assumes that all of one's social media followers believe every word that comes out of her mouth, or are even her supporters.  That's a very questionable assumption.

It is, however, 13 million is a large number and one cannot deny that a large portion of that believe in what she says.

"Meta derail, but please provide a quote of the comment in which I've said so.  Having you on ignore would impede my ability to moderate."

My apologies. I thought I was posting to someone else.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @4.1.17    one month ago
one cannot deny that a large portion of that believe in what she says.

Of course one can.  We pretty much all know that politicians engage in hyperbole.  It's expected by all but the most naive.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.18    one month ago
Of course one can.  We pretty much all know that politicians engage in hyperbole.  It's expected by all but the most naive.

It all depends on which politician one is referring to.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.1.16    one month ago

Here are some real inconvenient truths from Al Gore and his gang:

Al Gore Grilled Over Climate Predictions That Never Happened (townhall.com)

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.21  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    one month ago
It all depends on which politician one is referring to

Exactly

How many times have we heard from liberals here that if we are republican or conservative, we are Trump supporters, defend him at every turn and will follow him off a cliff.

Then go on to not so subtly call us racists because of what they think we believe.

Case in point.

Yesterday, I posted something about what black Americans that decided not to go to college feel about bailing out white privileged kids, and was promptly called a white supremacist. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.10    one month ago
I never said that humans are not the cause of some warming of the earth, however, cultists, like those who follow AOC, and there are many, believe that we must take drastic measures to combat this warming and do EVERYTHING NOW...

Why bring up the extremist views in counter to a sensible comment from DP?    He did not argue EVERYTHING NOW or present a Earth is dead in 12 years doomsday scenario.

My  4.1.5  was to easily correct Dismayed Patriot, who somehow fit his hatred of conservatives into his rant.

DP made a factual statement about conservatives in general.   Someone makes a defensible point and that translates into hatred and a rant??    Hyperbole is not persuasive.

Note that it is conservatives in general who are most opposed to clean energy measures.  

Most U.S. adults continue to support expanding solar panel farms (84%) and wind turbine farms (77%), but Republicans and Democrats are increasingly divided in views on these two energy sources, according to a recent  Pew Research Center survey .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.1.21    one month ago

Sounds like just another NT day then!

"We will lump you ALL together no matter what, but don't you DARE try to pull that shit on us!" seems to be the message of the day.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    one month ago
We pretty much all know that politicians engage in hyperbole

Same with many writing here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.24    one month ago
Same with many writing here.

Actually, sometimes it is kind of interesting to see how many words they can use to describe what they deem conservatives. Nowhere else do I see so many adjectives used so many times!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.26  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    one month ago
Why bring up the extremist views in counter to a sensible comment from DP? 

Instead of arguing for the sense simply to argue, go back and actually READ the entirety of the thread.

I agreed that there is some climate change brought on by humans, but not all of It. I believe that we will one day transition to EVs, solar, wind, etc, energy....once the technology becomes affordable to the average American.

Right now it is not.

If you think THIS is sensible..."And the supposed non-cultists are a minority of indoctrinated conservatives who have banded together to resist the mainstream consensus, reject basic facts and scientific data so as to embrace a discredited theory consisting of unsupported alternative facts and/or religious beliefs.", then you are part of the problem.

"DP made a factual statement about conservatives in general:.

Then that is a sweeping generalization, against site rules, and needs to be removed.

Thanks for admitting this for all to read.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    one month ago
Hyperbole is not persuasive.

Those who find it so while attempting to use it themselves apparently overestimate its effectiveness when used by others.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.26    one month ago

Failed rebuttals are not salvaged by going personal.

I agreed that there is some climate change brought on by humans, but not all of It. 

Strawman.   Nobody has suggested that all of climate change is brought on by human beings.   

Then that is a sweeping generalization, against site rules, and needs to be removed.

A sweeping generalization is a derogatory statement about an entire group and in particular a group to which many members of NT ascribe.   It is funny watching you claim I am not carefully reading as your comment trips over itself.   The phrase "a minority of indoctrinated conservatives" is talking about a sliver of conservatives, not ALL conservatives.   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.29  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    one month ago
Failed rebuttals are not salvaged by going personal.

When I said that if you believe what DP posted, then you are part of the problem, I meant it.

"Nobody has suggested that all of climate change is brought on by human beings"

Never said anyone did.

"A sweeping generalization is a derogatory statement about an entire group and in particular a group to which many members of NT ascribe.   It is funny watching you claim I am not carefully reading as your comment trips over itself.   The phrase "a minority of indoctrinated conservatives" is talking about a sliver of conservatives, not ALL conservatives"

That's right, it is, however, I knew DP used the phrase you cited, however, YOU stated "DP made a factual statement about conservatives in general"

 If you think  in your 4.1.22 that DP made a general statement of conservatives, then YOUR post needs to be removed for being a SG.

Now, I have entertained the need to argue just to argue.

Please stop doing so.

It's obtuse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.29    one month ago
YOU stated " DP made a factual statement about conservatives in general "

Yes, the factual statement is, as I pointed out with my references, that conservatives typically hold the majority of climate deniers.   Pay attention to context and do not cherry-pick to misrepresent what people write:

TiG @4.1.22 ☞ Note that it is conservatives in general who are most opposed to clean energy measures.  

Most U.S. adults continue to support expanding solar panel farms (84%) and wind turbine farms (77%), but Republicans and Democrats are increasingly divided in views on these two energy sources, according to a recent  Pew Research Center survey .

I see no rebuttal from you ... just a continued stream of grasping at straws and bogus allegations.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.31  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.7    one month ago

From YOUR link:

Her comments are in reference to a United Nations-backed climate report, published late last year, that determined the effects of climate change to be irreversible and unavoidable if carbon emissions are not reined in over the next 12 years.

Context matters to people of good faith. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.32  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.30    one month ago
Yes, the factual statement is, as I pointed out with my references, that conservatives typically hold the majority of climate deniers. 

And you posted this...

"a factual statement about conservatives in general""

A sweeping generalization is making a general statement of a group of people...DP made a derogatory statement about a minority of a group, you expanded that to the whole IN GENERAL.

No grasping needed. I have a firm grasp on your insults.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.33  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.31    one month ago

Also in my link

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” Ocasio-Cortez asked Coates.

I never mentioned what the UN report said........I cited what SHE said.

Reading comprehension is important.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.32    one month ago

It is a fact that climate deniers are typically conservative.  I backed that up with Pew and you simply ignore it (repeatedly).

Merely stating a fact about a group is not a sweeping generalization.   For example conservatives in general are typically Republican is not a sweeping generalization.   Nor is conservatives comprise the majority of Trump sycophants.

A sweeping generalization would be something like:  liberals think with feeling instead of their minds or conservatives are selfish, apathetic narcissists.

A sweeping generalization is making a general statement of a group of people...exactly what you did,.

Wrong again.   Read again what I wrote:

TiG @4.1.28 ☞ A sweeping generalization is a derogatory statement about an entire group and in particular a group to which many members of NT ascribe.

Again, nothing but pathetic grasping at straws.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.35  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.34    one month ago
It is a fact that climate deniers are typically conservative.  I backed that up with Pew and you simply ignore it

Why should I respond to something that is generally known as true?

Because you want to argue just to argue.

DP posted this originally...

"And the supposed non-cultists are a minority of indoctrinated conservatives who have banded together to resist the mainstream consensus, reject basic facts and scientific data so as to embrace a discredited theory consisting of unsupported alternative facts and/or religious beliefs"

His derogatory statement stated a small minority, which is acceptable. You, on the other hand, in 4.1.22, stated

"DP made a factual statement about conservatives in general."

You elevated the derogatory comment from a small minority to conservatives in general.

You did exactly what you posted as your definition of a SG, and I quote

"A sweeping generalization is a derogatory statement about an entire group and in particular a group to which many members of NT ascribe"

"Again, nothing but pathetic grasping at straws."

Yes....yes you are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.35    one month ago

Your tactic of ignoring what I wrote and simply repeating your demonstrably wrong allegation is no substitute for an actual rebuttal.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.37  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.36    one month ago

Yep.....I am right again....

Arguing simply to argue.

Do you not understand the statement "I did not respond to it because it is generally true"

I also agreed that most adults support wind and solar, including myself, but most cannot afford them. Same with EVs and the cost of charging (by fossil fuels run chargers).

Stop with the slimy tactic and harassment.

Not a good look.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.38  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.36    one month ago

most of them feel empowered to fuck over the planet for everyone else because geezus is coming. /s

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.38    one month ago

Nonsense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.37    one month ago
Arguing simply to argue.

Look in the mirror.   You leap from content into dishonest cherry-picking and then accuse me of arguing for the sake of argument.   

Rather than engage in petty theatrics I suggest you first ensure you have an argument before attempting to make one.

Bottom line, instead of thoughtfully attempting to refute my point (backed up with Pew) you resort to cliché deflection tactics.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.41  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.39    one month ago
Nonsense

Did you expect anything different?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.42  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.40    one month ago
You leap from content into dishonest cherry-picking and then accuse me of arguing for the sake of argument

Prove it.

"Bottom line, instead of thoughtfully attempting to refute my point (backed up with Pew) you resort to cliché deflection tactics."

Why the fuck should I attempt to refute something I agree with?

I told you three times that I agree. You keep coming back accusing me of fucking ignoring it each time, ie, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Bottom line, you can't handle defeat and demand to argue things people agree with you about.

Delusional at best.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.42    one month ago
Bottom line, you can't handle defeat ...

256

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.44  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.43    one month ago

Childish

I demanded you prove the allegations you made of me, and it is obvious you can't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.1.41    one month ago

Not really.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.1.46  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago
Why is the standard some people want to judge Trump by  "what has he been convicted of?".   He is the worst person to ever hold the office of president of the United States . Isnt that enough? 

Let's see, now . . . did I represent my comment - in any way, shape, or form - as a judgment of Donald Trump, the man, as a whole? Or as a president?

Read carefully. Think REAL hard. 

Then calm TF down and try responding to what I actually wrote.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.47  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.33    one month ago
Reading comprehension is important.

You're hardly promoting reading comprehension by ignoring CONTEXT. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.48  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @4.1.47    one month ago
You're hardly promoting reading comprehension by ignoring CONTEXT. 

They ignore far more than context... you can include: reality, facts, reason, science, education, health recommendations, common sense, logic...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.49  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    4 weeks ago
Apparently not.  So many are withholding judgment at this time

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif  
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.50  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @4.1.10    4 weeks ago

You have never corrected anyone here, EVER, with the truth or anything resembling the truth.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.51  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.47    4 weeks ago
You're hardly promoting reading comprehension by ignoring CONTEXT. 

I provided you with proof of what I posted, in which you tried to deflect with a UN report.

My original post stated it was AOC that made the earth will die in 12 years. You deflected (because you knew you were wrong) with a UN report that essentially called AOC an idiot, not that they were wrong.

Truly, reading is fundamental. More than likely, the word context is foreign to you because what I proved to you (once again) had nothing to do with context, but actual words for  the horse's mouth (no pun intended).

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.1.52  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.51    4 weeks ago

“what I proved to you (once again) had nothing to do with context,…”

Indeed. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.53  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.48    4 weeks ago
They ignore far more than context... you can include: reality, facts, reason, science, education, health recommendations, common sense, logic...

Tell you what...How about YOU show where I ignored context when I quoted something the dumbass cult leader ACTUALLY SAID. '

Maybe you can teach your friend what the word context means.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.54  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.51    4 weeks ago
I provided you with proof of what I posted, in which you tried to deflect with a UN report. My original post stated it was AOC that made the earth will die in 12 years. You deflected (because you knew you were wrong) with a UN report that essentially called AOC an idiot, not that they were wrong.

Utter bullshit bugsy. 

You posted a link to an article yet you don't seem to want anyone to actually READ the fucking thing. You want to restrict the discussion about it to what YOU cherry picked. 

My comment wasn't a deflection. I posted what YOUR link stated about what SHE said. That's called CONTEXT.

You don't get to decide if context matters. 

Don't like it?

Tough. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.55  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.53    4 weeks ago
Maybe you can teach your friend what the word context means.

WTF is it lately with your desperate attempt to pretend that my vocabulary is lacking? My posts on this forum are proof enough that claim is utterly false. 

Do my comments have you looking up words bugsy? 

Again, tough. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.56  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @4.1.55    4 weeks ago

snicker snicker snort snort

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.57  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.54    4 weeks ago
"Utter bullshit bugsy."

All he has.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
4.1.58  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.30    4 weeks ago
as I pointed out with my references, that conservatives typically hold the majority of climate deniers. 

Which one of those Typical conservatives Typically "Deny" the Climate is changing ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

800

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    one month ago

800

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    one month ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.2    one month ago

It amazes me that any business would enter into a contract with Trump where they do work prior to getting paid.

Personally, I would not deal with Trump in any way, but if one is inclined to do so, it is stupid to rely upon Trump's good faith.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    one month ago

Please stop with your junk replies that don't have anything to do with my comments.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

Has nobody heard of cash up front?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

Especially with someone with the track record of Trump.   Further, I would never do business with such a lying sack-of-shit.   Trump has routinely declared that he was dissatisfied with work and refused payment; I can see him suing to get his money back if paid upfront.   It is not worth the risk doing business with a slimy con-man.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

He doesn't pay anyone except the Russians/Putin.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

I wonder what it's going to take, other than the return of Jesus, to quell the defence of Trump by a bunch of NT conservatives.  But then what faith could anyone have in those who probably think the election was stolen?  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    one month ago
I wonder what it's going to take"i had to just stop, that "wonder" thingy, to be for the one who lost, yet remains clingy, is QUITE the thingy, that one needs tpo take quite seriously. For it to take, for Trump to FURTHER RISK, our COUNTRIES SECURITY, as he has proven capable of, numerous occasions, and occasionally, on other occasions, to have NO Respect for things American. Little Things, like the CONSTITUTION, our LAWS, Ethics, Morals, Couth, N say, Respect for our Forefathers. So many who risked Life and Limb, so many that gave Life, and Lost Limb, to create their vision, of a More Perfect Union.  That Trump and his followers, spit on their graves, for grave developments, develop in grave circumstances, often in the Mourning, sometimes attempted to be De forming , possibly, in an attempt to possibly D - Form "A More Perfect Union" Scavenger Hunt, sponsored by  "Mr. "   Trump, as he again, feels he can take a dump, on the Graves of our fallen, our heroes, all while he thinks only of himself, his exaggerated Wealth, and his obvious Stealth Like Special K operations , starting and ending in 00000'z, to allow him room for calculating the averages, that could possibly allow me, to care....F i was
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1    one month ago

You could be a rap star. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    one month ago

Actually, I'm only a Christmas wrapper, cause, no one ever likes my presence, so i get a jolly off that, every Quanza 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

This must be your favorite Christmas song then

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
5.2  Revillug  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    4 weeks ago
I wonder what it's going to take, other than the return of Jesus, to quell the defence of Trump by a bunch of NT conservatives. 

You could put them on your ignore list.

That does a pretty good job of quelling them for me.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Revillug @5.2    4 weeks ago

Does for me, too

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.1    4 weeks ago

Nobody appears to be using the bogus 'FBI planted the evidence' excuse any more.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.2    4 weeks ago

I saw a good meme on face book. If the FBI planted the evidence, why do you want it back?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Revillug @5.2    4 weeks ago

Thanks for the advice, but I don't believe in using the "ignore" function.  It would prevent me from seeing what the assholes are posting, and I relish flagging their stupid contraventions of the ToS and CoC - it's more fun causing them to be suspended than not being able to see what they post. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

I couldn't survive here if I didn't have half of them on ignore

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.6  seeder  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.5    4 weeks ago

Butt, we do have a one stop window into what the worst rightwing trolls in the US are up to...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.5    4 weeks ago

you won't be missing any informed content.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.8  seeder  JBB  replied to  devangelical @5.2.7    4 weeks ago

Who would put up with their shit in real life?

But, if I am curious what we are up against...

I can skip other hate sites. It is all right here!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

I saw a good one too and used it - with Columbo - 'one more thing Sir, if these documents were planted by the FBI, how did you declassify them?'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

I see one of the 'assholes' flagged your comment.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
5.2.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Revillug @5.2    4 weeks ago
You could put them on your ignore list.

I have them all on Ignore. Makes for a much more pleasant visit here on NT, and I can enjoy the meaningful and enlightening dialog of others.

One of the reasons I come to NT is to learn, and there is nothing of value to learn from them.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.10    4 weeks ago

Just proving that I was right, but how can you tell?  I didn't think that another's flags show up on the flag link.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
5.2.13  Revillug  replied to  Raven Wing @5.2.11    3 weeks ago

I stopped getting tickets from Sally and warnings from Perrie after I put them (all) on my ignore list.

It makes a lot of NT unreadable but I have better things to do with my time than being a sounding board for MAGA talking points.

You can't win these people over. You need to defeat them at the polls.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Revillug @5.2.13    3 weeks ago
You can't win these people over.

In some cases it is a real-time experiment in just how irrational a human being can be.   And I agree, with some, it is crystal clear that reasoning is futile;  facts are futile;  logic is futile.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
5.2.15  Revillug  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.4    3 weeks ago
It would prevent me from seeing what the assholes are posting

You could just put on Fox News for background noise and hear everything that will be said here on NT. Nothing original comes out of the mouths of the brainwashed right wingers in America.

This is a very small website. There is no battle for the soul of America to be waged on this site. If you enjoy the back and forth with the couple of dozen from the dark side, then by all means have at it.

The thought that terrifies me is that NT is what assisted living will be like.

Can you imagine?

I hope I get to die at home.

 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.16  Freewill  replied to  Raven Wing @5.2.11    3 weeks ago
One of the reasons I come to NT is to learn, and there is nothing of value to learn from them.

Sure there is.  You can learn how to deal with difficult people.  You can learn how to reason with the unreasonable.  You can come to the realization that you can help others to learn while you are learning yourself, and that is the only way that you can help create positive change both in yourself and in others around you.  Ignoring a problem rarely makes it go away.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Revillug @5.2.15    3 weeks ago

Yeah, but I can't flag FOX News.  Some of the right-wingers aren't bad guys - they've just been misled. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Ender  replied to  Freewill @5.2.16    3 weeks ago
You can learn how to reason with the unreasonable.

Sort of an oxy moron there.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.17    3 weeks ago
Some of the right-wingers aren't bad guys - they've just been misled. 

At what point does being misled turn to willful ignorance and/or cognitive dissonance Buzz? 

NT still has 'Big Lie' believers here. They're not being misled; they are in denial. 

'Back the Blue' while defending the Jan. 6 insurrectionists who assaulted LEOs as 'political prisoners' isn't about being misled, it's cognitive dissonance. 

Posting and supporting seeds ad nauseam that are the equivalent of 'Lock her up' while on the other hand claiming that there must not be evidence of Trump's wrongdoing because he was acquitted by the Senate and there is no DOJ indictment yet. 

Claiming they are all about 'America First' and the rule of law while insisting that the legal retrieval of TS/SCI documents from Trump's unsecured county club after he failed to comply with a subpoena is all about politics and the DOJ/FBI are not to be trusted. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.2.19    3 weeks ago
NT still has 'Big Lie' believers here. They're not being misled; they are in denial. 

Since this is an example of profound irrationality, I am not satisfied that all people who spout it actually believe the ridiculous bullshit they write.

My hypothesis is that they simply refuse to admit they were wrong about Trump.   Instead of flipping the switch and recognizing that Trump is simply not to be believed and certainly not to be supported, they instead choose to defend the indefensible.   Now that in itself is irrational IMO since it dooms them to making absurd arguments with intellectually dishonest tactics.    But I think in their binary ' us vs. them ' world, they believe it is better to fight with wet noodles than to let ' them ' be right on any point (much less on the quality of the GoP leader).

In short, some choose to look like utter fools rather than deal with the fact that a GoP PotUS is a disgrace to the nation and should be dismissed rather than followed.

iStock_000033955130_Medium.jpg

If someone cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that Trump was wrong to hold classified documents in his residence, there is no objectivity left to work with.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.21  Freewill  replied to  Ender @5.2.18    3 weeks ago
Sort of an oxy moron there.

Not really. The reason one reasons with anyone, especially the unreasonable, is to help them and others reading along understand another more rational point of view.  My friend TiG for example is pretty good at it if you ask me.  I know it becomes tedious, it can be frustrating, and it is not always successful, but to assume that folks like TiG aren’t making an impact would be a dire mistake.

As Buzz points out, people can easily be misled, the hard part is helping them recover from that and think things through with a clearer mind.  IMHO it is worth the effort if one truly cares about other people.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @5.2.21    3 weeks ago
to assume that folks like TiG aren’t making an impact would be a dire mistake.

Tig may be making an impact, but its not on Newstalkers. 

The people he is trying to "educate" are totally uninterested. We dont have to convince such people and such ideologies as "MAGA", we have to defeat them. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Freewill @5.2.21    3 weeks ago
 I know it becomes tedious, it can be frustrating, and it is not always successful, but to assume that folks like TiG aren’t making an impact would be a dire mistake.

There is no doubt, TiG makes an impact on the reality deniers, as they scramble their misused straw men and women arguments leaving us to snort, as their retort fuels the gas lights are on as "know won be home when away from reality", that eye 2 sea many deep enough, to NO BETTER, than too, B leave, that they too, are amongst the deceiving and shipping, like we all be tripping, asz they a tempt to tie shoes and innocence being achieved due to No Convictions, as depictions are numerous. The he hasn't been, so he is in NO sense  Not Guilty according to they, as they cause my thoughts to stray, dog fighting over planes and simples smack inn front of their not faces the flies in the reason, Vaseline required in seasons of Wither, as the arguments grow cold and blow, by the way, the wind up toy soldiers march to a meet and beat upheaval, based on denial river continuous flow asz out with the bull swhip they continue to go, yet never far enuff can they swim from the reality they have chosen to spin in a dizzying array that has to leave one ready to begin, to accept the immortal quote of some great philosopher, Raptor  (a nickname i once acquired)  " you can't fix stupid", and not all have the patience of TiG, 

so let me go out on this twig

if someone wishes to have serious debate, it is one thing, but to branch out on so much leaves one digging for the root cause of their mental incapability to see, the bark on the tree, because Forrest Gump prefers to accept all things Trump, to be  "What they WISH were TRUE" instead of steadfast Lies that any and all SHOULD be able to see right through, to the othersides point, or pointless or more view, a chosen argumeant to save face, for defense of one complete Disgrace

really has NO PLACE to go,    B sides  Down

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.22    3 weeks ago
The people he is trying to "educate" are totally uninterested.

I agree, the people I (we) engage are using sophistry to prop up an illusion that they are right.   Even if they truly do not believe the bullshit they put forth, they will never contradict their established positions on the site.

To wit, I never have the expectation that I would change the mind of any interlocutor.   At the very best, after time, there might be some small influence.   But for the most part, changing the mind of an interlocutor has never been my objective.

The purpose for engaging people like this, IMO, is:

  • To give hell to those spreading intellectual dishonesty around the site
  • To illustrate the absurdity of the arguments made to those who might be reading
  • To confront actual human beings (rather than yell at a YouTube video) to see if there is anything whatsoever credible behind their views
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.25  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.24    3 weeks ago
To confront actual human beings (rather than yell at a YouTube video) to see if there is anything whatsoever credible behind their views

i prefewr to vent here, my frustration, cause my peers and friends, i prefer to keep, and don't always wish to make weep, and though i could, what good, does come from the alienation, cause i prefer illegal alien nation to dealing with those with brain on vacation. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.25    3 weeks ago

Agreed.    In real life, relationships are complex and multidimensional.   It is best to not disrupt a complex relationship due to political or religious differences.   On a social media site, especially with those who are not friends, one can be candid and see if there is anything whatsoever of value in the argument of one's interlocutor.   

So basically, for me, I will tend to not challenge friends but will freely challenge those who have demonstrated hostility and/or intellectual dishonesty.   The more hostile /dishonest the relationship, the more aggressive I will be in response.   In contrast, the more I consider an individual a friend, the more I will support the arguments of theirs with which I agree.   This applies to a degree to those who simply vote up those I would challenge.   If someone makes a totally ridiculous argument (e.g. that Trump won the election), those who would vote up such nonsense out themselves without having to comment.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.27  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.22    3 weeks ago
Tig may be making an impact, but its not on Newstalkers

I beg to differ.  I’m at NT and he has had an impact on me.  And I happen to know it is more than just me.  If you encourage people to think, you are making an impact whether they appear to agree or not.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.28  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @5.2.27    3 weeks ago

Raven Wing, Trout and I were not talking about TiG. We were talking about the numerous uncontrolled trolls who do not contribute a damn thing of value to this site except bother, and you know it!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.29  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.24    3 weeks ago
"Even if they truly do not believe the bullshit they put forth, they will never contradict their established positions on the site."

I have wondered about that, and even asked the question that if in fact Trump does end up in jail do they have the balls and integrity to admit they have been wrong.  Receiving no reply to that indicated to me that they most likely do not have the balls or integrity of a mature person or are simply afraid to lose the friendship of their colleagues.  Sadly we must tolerate their presence on this site.  As the person tasked with checking out and following for a while every new person who signs up on this site in order to police spammers I am of the opinion that so few of them actually become active and in fact walk away because of the garbage that those "no balls or integrity" members post.  So let's hear it from those "not bad right-wingers" I referred to above as to how they feel, if they have the guts to post a reply to my question.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.29    3 weeks ago

You will not get an answer except for a few.   Thus far, two here have stated that Trump did wrong.   One, however, equivocated when I asked him to explain that to another member who flat out repeatedly refuses to even acknowledge that Trump was wrong to hold classified documents at his residence.

Ergo my hypothesis that this is all a foolish and transparent charade to avoid having to acknowledge to 'them' that 'us' was wrong (us vs. them).

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.2.31  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.30    3 weeks ago
"You will not get an answer except for a few."

Yes, I've noted that a couple have hesitatingly hinted that they may have been wrong, but most continue to have neither balls nor integrity, some still stubbornly posting hilariously ridiculous comments.  Well, that does add a bit of humour to the site. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.32  Freewill  replied to  JBB @5.2.28    3 weeks ago
Raven Wing, Trout and I were not talking about TiG. We were talking about the numerous uncontrolled trolls who do not contribute a damn thing of value to this site except bother, and you know it!

Of course I know who Raven was originally talking about!  How did you possibly read my comments otherwise? 

I was simply pointing out that TiG is one who is good at countering those folks and trying to reason with them.  As he points out himself, he is not necessarily trying to change that specific person's mind, but rather present a rational counter to their arguments, and expose the intellectual dishonesty for others to consider.   JR was the one who said he isn't making an impact here and I disagreed whole-heartedly.  I believe he is making an impact over the long haul even when it doesn't seem that way to him (or you) in the moment as he is addressing his interlocuter.

Let's examine your words for a moment.  You are clearly "bothered" by those whom you feel "do not contribute a damn thing of value" here.   You feel they are "trolls" and should be "controlled".  That is what you just said above.  First, if you feel they contribute nothing of value, then wouldn't it be prudent to point that out with a rational counter, rather than suggesting they should be "controlled" because they "bother you"?  Is that how an open discussion board works?  Can we all call people a troll or claim that they are a bother and insist that they need to be controlled, or is that privilege reserved only for you? 

How about we all grow up and accept that people are going to have differing opinions and that regardless of how odious we feel those opinions are they are as free to express them as we are to express ours?  Rather than asking the powers to be to "control" them, how about we counter them with logic and reason and set a better example?   I prefer the latter, as the former might come back to bite one in the ass someday when the tables are turned.    

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
5.2.33  Revillug  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.17    3 weeks ago
Yeah, but I can't flag FOX News.

You can't flag it to NT moderators but people call out Fox News all the time.

Jon Stewart didn't call it bullshit mountain for nothing.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.34  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Freewill @5.2.32    3 weeks ago
How about we all grow up and accept that people are going to have differing opinions and that regardless of how odious we feel those opinions are they are as free to express them as we are to express ours?  Rather than asking the powers to be to "control" them, how about we counter them with logic and reason and set a better example?   I prefer the latter, as the former might come back to bite one in the ass someday when the tables are turned.

I agree with what you have stated, but sometimes hate it, when their are they that irregardless of whatt i might say have a response not worthy of sway in any one with another way to see that what is they do attempt to correspond while yarn is just spinning wheels as they appeal

out not, and their just wanting to taunt,

but it is wanting my cease and desist ordered by a quart

of painting a paint brush, with a sprayer that rolls

on wheels powered by electric brushed nickel brushes with

teeth, that fill cavities, for the body of the search

is found in the stripped mind, i'll make found, four strokes sometimes have two cycles too

B around about way that i'll say directly to the impartial partiality, partially because i can't seem to sometimes tolerate, intentional ignorance, and impartially to the impartiality is one of my favorite biases to purchase for they, lately, just let em' get, and stay, away

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.35  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @5.2.32    3 weeks ago
How about we all grow up and accept that people are going to have differing opinions and that regardless of how odious we feel those opinions are they are as free to express them as we are to express ours?  Rather than asking the powers to be to "control" them, how about we counter them with logic and reason and set a better example?   I prefer the latter, as the former might come back to bite one in the ass someday when the tables are turned.    

I'm sorry, that is naivete. 

Rather than asking the powers to be to "control" them, how about we counter them with logic and reason and set a better example?

In order for a "better example" to be meaningful you have to be working with people who are susceptible to changing their minds when they receive information that conclusively counters their own. 

If the last 6 or 7 years have taught us anything it is that MAGA fanatics dont care about facts. The facts at this point are mountainous that Trump is not fit to hold the office of dogcatcher , yet at his rally last night they were screaming for him to run again. 

It may feel comforting to some to believe that they can change opinions with "facts", but sometimes it just doesnt matter. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.36  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.35    3 weeks ago
I'm sorry, that is naivete. 

What is naive about it JR?  Is it naive to think that everyone has a right to express their opinion?  Or is it naive to think we have the right to control what other people say simply because we don’t like it?

In order for a "better example" to be meaningful you have to be working with people who are susceptible to changing their minds…

That is absolutely untrue!  Setting a better example is meaningful whether others chose to follow it or not.  It is meaningful because it means you cared enough to do it.  

What sort of example does it set to suggest that the free speech or opinions of others should be silenced or “controlled” simply because you don’t like it?  How likely would you be to change your mind if those with whom you disagree were to suggest that your speech or your opinion should be silenced or controlled?  Have you ever considered that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @5.2.36    3 weeks ago
What sort of example does it set to suggest that the free speech or opinions of others should be silenced or “controlled” simply because you don’t like it?  How likely would you be to change your mind if those with whom you disagree were to suggest that your speech or your opinion should be silenced or controlled?  Have you ever considered that?

Who is talking about silencing anyone here?  Although I do think that obvious trolling should be addressed by management. 

Other than that everyone should be free to say whatever they want, and the rest of us should be free to tell them they are full of it. I have no desire at all to "compromise" with any MAGA , especially the more deplorable ones.  They need to learn that THEY have to change , not that the rest of us should find middle ground with them. 

On some issues of course there can be and even has to be compromise, but how many issues are presented by MAGA with a "middle ground". 

Should the effects of racism be taught, in a specific way, in k-12 schools?  Many MAGA dont want it taught, at all, that America has been a historically racist country.  What is there to compromise with about that ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.38  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.37    3 weeks ago
Greg Dworkin
@DemFromCT
"America's been against fascism for a while now and it pisses me off"
Quote Tweet
VRFUWsuH_mini.jpg
Sen. Marsha Blackburn
@MarshaBlackburn
· Sep 3
The DOJ and FBI have been attempting to stop President Trump and the America First agenda for almost a decade.
=====================================================================
Here we see Marsha Blackburn, the right wing/conservative US senator from Tennessee , complaining that Trump and his agenda have been opposed , by the FBI and the DOJ for almost a decade, and then someone on twitter replies to her by saying , yes its true, America is against fascism. 
-
Marsha Blackburn is a United States senator. She knows damn well that Trump betrayed his country and it's principles with his words and actions after the 2020 election. She knows he is likely a criminal but is at least an autocrat who wants to dictate outcomes and will never accept not being "king". Yet, even in the face of all the evidence that Trump is unfit, she is defending him against law enforcement. 
-
How is there any compromise available here? 
 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.39  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.37    3 weeks ago
Who is talking about silencing anyone here? 

Fair enough, perhaps I went too far in using that specific word.  Although some here did indicate more than once that they would like to see those whom they would label a "troll" or "a bother" "controlled", or at least lamenting that they were "uncontrolled".  You indicated that you think it needs to be addressed as well.  In the context of our venue here I think it was fair to assume that the "addressing" or "controlling" will involve suspension or banning, as that is the only form of "control" available to the moderators or management here beyond issuing tickets, which for some here is no deterrent from poor behavior at all.  Some consider tickets here a badge of honor and have actually admitted that in the open forum.  So by logical extension, if one is suspended or banned here it means they have been silenced at least temporarily and at most permanently with respect to this venue.  If that is not what was meant by "controlled" or "addressed", then what do you think it meant?   I'm all ears.

Other than that everyone should be free to say whatever they want, and the rest of us should be free to tell them they are full of it.

Exactly!  Infinitely better than suggesting that someone else should see to it that they are "controlled".

They need to learn that THEY have to change.

OK fair enough, so how do we teach them?  Shall we just continue to lump them together as MAGA in a derogatory manner, call them "trolls", "a bother", "deplorable", "racists", "full of it", and continue to insist that they be controlled by whatever force is available from management?  Shall we continue to refuse to reason with them, refuse to see if there is some way we can find a glimmer of common ground on which to build a pathway to change?  Do you really feel that fosters a positive environment for learning and change?  How do you think that has worked out so far? 

If one wants other people to learn or to change, then perhaps one must first be willing to do the same.  It took me awhile to learn that myself when I first arrived at NV many years ago.  But I've had some good teachers along the way who I am now happy to call my friends even though we don't always agree.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.40  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @5.2.39    3 weeks ago

Urp! "Some here" said no such thing. Your analysis is shitty...

Along the lines of Mr Knowitall meets Cliff from Cheers!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.41  Freewill  replied to  JBB @5.2.40    3 weeks ago
It is my seed.  I was not talking to you.

I respect that this is your seed, but you were talking to me at 5.2.28 and I responded at 5.2.32, and I high-lighted exactly what you said.  Again, if what you meant by "uncontrolled trolls" differs from what I gathered from your words, I'm all ears.  It seems that you and I are often misunderstanding each other, and I apologize for my part in that. 

Urp! "Some here" said no such thing. Your analysis is shitty... Along the lines of Mr Knowitall meets Norm from Cheers!

Hmmm... seems you completely changed your comment in 5.2.40, and by the looks of it, not for the better.  Despite the insults, my response remains the same.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.42  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @5.2.41    3 weeks ago

Does being pedantic and condescending work in real life?

Let's be honest. We do not like each other going way back.

But, you are a moderator here so you lord it over everyone!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.43  Freewill  replied to  JBB @5.2.42    3 weeks ago
Does being pedantic and condescending work in real life?

Perhaps you could tell me?  I know that being thorough, rational, and honest does, so that is what I try to be.

Butt, you are a moderator here so you lord it over everyone…

Really?  How so?  I express my opinions here same as you.  I claim no privileged status.  In fact, as Norm would say, “It’s a dog eat dog world, and I’m wearing milk-bone underwear.” jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.44  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @5.2.43    3 weeks ago

I said what I really meant really concisely so you really using ten thousand words to explain what "Some People" really meant is really pretentious, really pedantic and really unnecessary. And, I really do mean it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.45  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @5.2.39    3 weeks ago

There are a few people here who just about everyone agrees are consistent trolls. These are people who rarely make an actual argument on a topic, incessantly ask questions that are either pointless or have already been answered numerous times, and that have an obvious intent of adding drivel to a discussion. Frankly, this happens here multiple times every day. 

In my opinion these few individuals should be warned, publicly or privately, that TPTB are on to their game, and they should change their game or eventually they will be asked to leave. 

In the shorter term, trolling comments could simply be deleted, whether or not they were flagged.  I do not believe it is difficult or "controversial" to decide which comments are being made only to derail productive conversation. 

As far as compromising with MAGA goes, I am not interested in compromising with anyone who believes numerous conspiracy theories, and that applies to many of the MAGA. The right wing embrace of conspiracy theories over the past 20 or 30 years has done immense damage to this country's politics. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.46  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.45    3 weeks ago

Fair enough, and well said John.  Thanks.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.47  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freewill @5.2.46    3 weeks ago

Fair enough?   To what part of that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.48  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.47    3 weeks ago

I find this to be spot on:

JR @5.2.45 ☞ There are a few people here who just about everyone agrees are consistent trolls. These are people who rarely make an actual argument on a topic, incessantly ask questions that are either pointless or have already been answered numerous times, and that have an obvious intent of adding drivel to a discussion. Frankly, this happens here multiple times every day. 

In my opinion these few individuals should be warned, publicly or privately, that TPTB are on to their game, and they should change their game or eventually they will be asked to leave. 

In the shorter term, trolling comments could simply be deleted, whether or not they were flagged.  I do not believe it is difficult or "controversial" to decide which comments are being made only to derail productive conversation. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.49  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.48    3 weeks ago

Me too.

And the rest of it?

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.50  Freewill  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.47    3 weeks ago
Fair enough?   To what part of that?

All of it.  Try reading it without thinking of specific people you think he might be talking about.  Discard the partisan lens and think of what was said as being universally applicable and take it for what it is, his opinion, a concise explanation of what he meant by everything he wrote before.  One need not agree with the specifics if the principles behind it seem fair applied to ALL trolling behavior at this venue.  

As for the last paragraph, I think that is a fair enough assessment as well. Can you honestly say that there have been no conspiracy theories among those who support Trump or follow the MAGA movement?  How does the repeated claim that the election was stolen for example, without a shred of real evidence being provided, not do some damage to the country and the political process?  Some folks prefer not to compromise or attempt to reason with those who support such theories and that is fair enough if applied universally.  Others, like me, think it is important to talk all such things out in a logical and rational manner, not so much to arrive at a compromise, but to be as open, honest and reasonable as possible for the benefit of all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.51  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @5.2.50    3 weeks ago

There are some people who we might call MAGA that can "debate" current events without resorting to conspiracy theories or blatant disinformation, but they are few and far between. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.52  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freewill @5.2.50    3 weeks ago
All of it.  Try reading it without thinking of specific people you think he might be talking about.  Discard the partisan lens and think of what was said as being universally applicable and take it for what it is, his opinion, a concise explanation of what he meant by everything he wrote before.  One need not agree with the specifics if the principles behind it seem fair applied to ALL trolling behavior at this venue.  

For the 3rd time: We all agree on the first part.


As for the last paragraph, I think that is a fair enough assessment as well. Can you honestly say that there have been no conspiracy theories among those who support Trump or follow the MAGA movement?

What John calls conspiracy theories are mostly facts. Are you going to tell us that there wasn't a Russia/collusion hoax?  There wasn't an attempt to stifle the Hunter Biden laptop story during the election?  That our vice president didn't help set up a fund to help get the 2020 rioters out of jail?   Those are all things that John calls "conspiracy theories."


 How does the repeated claim that the election was stolen for example, without a shred of real evidence being provided, not do some damage to the country and the political process? 

Give us a fucking break!  How many here have defended that obvious nonsense?


Others think it is important to talk all such things out in a logical and rational manner, not so much to arrive at a compromise, but to be as open, honest and reasonable as possible for the benefit of all.

Since I have been a member of NV & NT they have been wrong on just about every issue, yet they work diligently at turning black to white & red to green.

Please note the non-answer I got from your colleague.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.53  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.52    3 weeks ago
Give us a fucking break!  How many here have defended that obvious nonsense?

If it is so obvious to people then how can one possibly defend Trump given the 'obvious nonsense' that he pushed as PotUS and continues to push?   How can anyone believe a word the man says and want such a lying sack-of-shit to continue as the leader of the GoP and potential candidate for the presidency?

Maybe it is not so obvious or maybe they do not care about the integrity of who they would see as the face of our nation and holder of the most powerful office on the planet.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.54  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.49    3 weeks ago
And the rest of it?

This:

As far as compromising with MAGA goes, I am not interested in compromising with anyone who believes numerous conspiracy theories, and that applies to many of the MAGA. The right wing embrace of conspiracy theories over the past 20 or 30 years has done immense damage to this country's politics. 

JR is right.  Why compromise with someone who is engaging in wild conspiracy theories; what would be the point?   Conspiracy theories generally just raise emotions to no good end.   People should follow the evidence to where it leads rather than leap to a conspiracy theory and try to adjust the facts of reality to that end.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.2.55  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.54    3 weeks ago
JR is right.  Why compromise with someone who is engaging in wild conspiracy theories; what would be the point? 

Exactly, they are past the point of redemption, we need to figure out how to just get rid of them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.2.55    3 weeks ago
Exactly, they are past the point of redemption, we need to figure out how to just get rid of them.

While we are at it, can we lose the folks silly enough to believe that the GOP is fascist?

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.57  Freewill  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.52    3 weeks ago
What John calls conspiracy theories are mostly facts.

According to some sources, perhaps. Certainly they might be worth exploring further and discussing.

Those are all things that John calls "conspiracy theories."

Understood, he might, but unless we discuss each topic rationally with him without the partisan rancor, and explore ALL the evidence and analysis rather than insisting you are right and he is wrong, we won't ever make progress. That is why I prefer my method of discussing specific details in a rational and reasonable manner, rather than refusing to reason with people because of a general perception I might have of them or because I think I am right sans any further discussion.  But I can understand why some refuse to discuss or to compromise when they think the other side has dug in their heels based on general perception.  But to those folks I would suggest, have you checked your own heels lately?  But again, that is only my opinion/preference and I do not expect everyone to agree.

Give us a fucking break!  How many here have defended that obvious nonsense?

Excellent!  So you agree that the stolen election gambit is nonsense.  See!   You are already making progress with John and now John knows that you can be reasonable and perhaps he might be more willing to reason with you on other issues/details as well.  

Since I have been a member of NV & NT they have been wrong on just about every issue, yet they work diligently at turning black to white & red to green.

And now you have just erased much of the progress you made.  My recommendation is to quit making it about us vs. them and generalizing about who is right and who is wrong, and discuss specific issues in a calm and rational way.  Be willing to exchange supporting evidence along the way and keep an open mind.  It might not work right away, but over time if you demonstrate a willingness to listen and discuss, and consider other points of view, so might others with whom you have difficulty.  If not, don't get upset about it, just keep doing your best to set the example.  By the way Vic, I hope you understand that I am not directing that advice only at you.

Please note the non-answer I got from your colleague.

Please be more specific, not sure to who or what you are referring.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.58  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.54    3 weeks ago
Why compromise with someone who is engaging in wild conspiracy theories

Perhaps the word "compromise" is inappropriate in this specific context.  I should have suggested the word "reason" in this context instead.  And the answer to, "Why reason with someone who is engaging in wild conspiracy theories?" would be so that perhaps you can show them and those listening how the theory does not hold water; how the facts don't support the theory.  Even if it takes 500 tries, wouldn't it be worth the effort compared to inadvertently hardening their resolve by being overly partisan? TiG, please know that last part of my last sentence is not directed at you, as I have not known you to make things partisan. 

People should follow the evidence to where it leads rather than leap to a conspiracy theory and try to adjust the facts of reality to that end.

Exactly!  The reason for reasoning with them.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.59  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.52    3 weeks ago
Are you going to tell us that there wasn't a Russia/collusion hoax? 

The only "hoax" i see, is you believe Trump did not collude with Russia.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.60  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.59    3 weeks ago
The only "hoax" i see, is you believe Trump did not collude with Russia.

Well, damn us to hell and back for believing the Great Mueller Report where he says he found no evidence to support that theory.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.61  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.2.55    3 weeks ago
Exactly, they are past the point of redemption, we need to figure out how to just get rid of them.

That is not my meaning.   My meaning is that compromising with someone with nutty ideas accomplishes nothing of value.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.62  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @5.2.58    3 weeks ago
I should have suggested the word "reason" in this context instead. 

I have found that there is no point in trying to reason with someone whose ideas are not based on well-founded facts.   Holding notions that are not well-supported indicates an emotional factor and there is no reasoning with emotion.   There is, however, a reason to debate those who make outrageous claims;  the reason is to expose the absurdity for readers.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.63  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.62    3 weeks ago

Fair enough.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.64  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.53    3 weeks ago
If it is so obvious to people then how can one possibly defend Trump given the 'obvious nonsense' that he pushed as PotUS and continues to push? 

He's no different than any other sore loser. Hillary Clinton said the 2016 election was stolen from her and WH Press Secretary was just asked this afternoon about her previous tweets stating "t hat Trump  had stolen the election in 2016 and that Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp had stolen his election in 2018." 




 How can anyone believe a word the man says and want such a lying sack-of-shit to continue as the leader of the GoP and potential candidate for the presidency?

Come on TiG... How can anyone prefer what this country has gone through this past 18 months to anything. Instead of calling people names, why not admit that Trump did a good job and this jerk has been a disaster?


Maybe it is not so obvious or maybe they do not care about the integrity of who they would see as the face of our nation and holder of the most powerful office on the planet.

Integrity?   Really TiG. What has gone on for almost 2 years has been an absolute disgrace.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.65  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.54    3 weeks ago
JR is right.  Why compromise with someone who is engaging in wild conspiracy theories; what would be the point?

Have you heard what JR has called "conspiracy theories" for the past few years. 

Let's get specific TiG.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.66  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freewill @5.2.57    3 weeks ago
According to some sources, perhaps. Certainly they might be worth exploring further and discussing.

The three examples I gave you are settled facts. Shall we discuss them?  


  But to those folks I would suggest, have you checked your own heels lately?

The Hunter Laptop story was quashed during the 2020 election. Do you really want to contest it?


Please be more specific, not sure to who or what you are referring.

I know, you know and everyone reading this knows. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.67  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freewill @5.2.58    3 weeks ago
The reason for reasoning with them.

Obviously I can't reason with you. BTW I lost whatever respect I had for you.

Congrats.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.68  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @5.2.32    3 weeks ago
Can we all call people a troll or claim that they are a bother and insist that they need to be controlled, or is that privilege reserved only for you? 

The answer to that question is self-evident to anyone who has used the flag function on this site. Trolling is a CoC violation which anyone can report. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.69  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.62    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.2.70  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.69    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.71  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.64    3 weeks ago
He's no different than any other sore loser.

Why do you defend him?   Trump is absolutely in a league of his own in terms of losers of presidential elections.   To dismiss all that he has done as 'no different' is precisely the kind of defense that allows Trump to remain relevant.

Instead of calling people names, why not admit that Trump did a good job and this jerk has been a disaster?

I called Trump a name.    Don't play slimy games with me Vic.

Times were much better when Trump was PotUS but you give waaaaaay too much credit to Trump and far too much blame on Biden.   When Clinton was PotUS would you say that the good economy was his doing?   When Bush 43 was PotUS would you say that the big recession was his doing?

Integrity?   

Yes, Vic, integrity.   For you to imply that Trump has anything more than abysmal integrity is yet another defense of the indefensible.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.72  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.65    3 weeks ago
Have you heard what JR has called "conspiracy theories" for the past few years. 

Hash that out with JR.   If you think I have made a conspiracy theory then feel free to speak to me about that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.73  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.69    3 weeks ago
Guess who is the textbook example?

I have half a dozen examples so I am not sure who the one example is from your perspective.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.74  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.67    3 weeks ago

That is a shame, it is choosing a wrong path.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.75  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.60    3 weeks ago

Sorry Tex, but Muellers Report DOES NOT SAYTHAT ! Why are so many willingly Obtuse and think they're so Acute when Never being RIGHT ? Just because Trump refused to be interviewed, and many said their correspondence was lost, or refused to cooperate, does not say Trump was innocent. In fact, the report basically stated, it Trump were not POTUS, HE WOULD have been INDICTED !  Pay attention to last paragraph

"establishes a damning series of facts about the Trump campaign’s connections to the Kremlin.

We learned that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a “spy.”

We learned that, after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them. Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of people that he was in contact with Russian agents.

We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on this front.

The report is very clear that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired on illegal Russian election interference, or that it coordinated with Russia through either an active or tacit agreement.

But the report, combined with other publicly known facts — that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with the express purpose of obtaining Russian “dirt” on Clinton, and that Papadopoulos was offered similar dirt from a Russian agent, among others — paints a damning picture of the campaign. It was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives.

As the report takes pains to point out, “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. So while the report did not establish conspiracy or coordination, it does not make a determination on “collusion” — and in fact, it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government."

;
So exactly WHAT do you base your claim on, Bill Barrs purposely inaccurate summation that Mueller had to correct ?
.
Just as Abortion should have never been back to the SCOTUS, the poor excuse for a POTUS, Trump, the Abortion, should haver NEVER been elected, but FOOLS buying into RUSSIAN Propaganda that Trump publically asked for and the 'Rights" stoking, along with shit candidate Hillary, got him there. 
What a Divisive Time for US, thanks to a POS Former  President, that did secretly work with Russia, Mueller just did not have quite enough to indict and have him found guilty, but there WAS PLENTY of EVIDENCE Trump worked with Russia. Remember "I have no dealings with Russia" quote by Trump, as he was attempting to build the largest skyscraper in Moscow ? yea, nothing to see there either, i guess from your blind look on anything that calls out Trump for the Lying POS HE IS !
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.76  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.74    3 weeks ago
it is choosing a wrong path.

Vic prefers taking the spork in the path, to spoon feed the 'right', with those little tickling teeth on the tip.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.77  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @5.2.68    3 weeks ago
The answer to that question is self-evident to anyone who has used the flag function on this site. Trolling is a CoC violation which anyone can report. 

Fairly good point, but calling someone a troll or "a bother" does not automatically mean that trolling has occurred. I have examined many a trolling flag as a moderator and found simply disagreement or alternate opinion, not trolling.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.2.78  afrayedknot  replied to  Freewill @5.2.77    3 weeks ago

“…as a moderator…”

…good on you and your brothers and sisters hereabouts for doing a thankless job. Good Karma coming your way…

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
5.2.79  Freewill  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.67    3 weeks ago
Obviously I can't reason with you. BTW I lost whatever respect I had for you. Congrats.

Sigh... So TiG says,

People should follow the evidence to where it leads rather than leap to a conspiracy theory and try to adjust the facts of reality to that end.

To which I replied,

Exactly!  The reason for reasoning with them.

And that's the straw that broke the camel's back?  You lost respect for me because of that?  Sorry to hear that man, just trying to be rational.  Perhaps you and JBB can get together and throw darts at my avatar...  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.80  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.69    3 weeks ago
Guess who is the textbook example?

vic, trick question. am I right?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.81  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @5.2.77    3 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.82  Dulay  replied to  afrayedknot @5.2.70    3 weeks ago

This is interesting. The comment is moderated as fine [grey flag] and then deleted.