I'm not leaving.

Just tired of you guys not actually taking the time to read what i'm posting, or responding with non-sequiturs and red herrings (relative to the things I'm saying, I mean.)  And then you insult my logical prowess?  Demand sources without providing any of your own?  (Again when my claims are primarily word-for-word only what Trump himself has stated).  I'm done.

It's impossible to do so when your claims are not based on logic. All we can do is point out how absurd your statements are.

But you're not, that's the thing.  You're going off on tangents about the dictionary definition of "discrimination" when you know damned well it takes on a loaded meaning in this context.  You're saying stuff that has little to nothing to do with the things I've said.  And I'm done.

I'm done.

Rigwyn, nothing you posted was a sensible argument against what Trump had himself said in the debates and through other media outlets.
You might want to trace the discussion back a few links. I think you've lost track of what we were discussing. 

Literally every claim I made was directly supported by Trump himself during the debates.  I'm not gonna go back and re-watch hours and hours of video to find where he made statements that are now so public knowledge that your average fourth-grader is aware of them.  Every "logical" statement you made has been DIRECTLY contradicted by Trump or his administration.  At the time of my original postings here these should have been extremely fresh in your mind because he had just said them.  Like literally just said how he believed in stop 'n frisk for instance or some terrible things about varying groups of people.  This is all stuff he has repeatedly stated publicly so there is zero question as to its authenticity.  I figured out pretty quick that Trumpers don't actually CARE about facts so I feel no need to now posthumously hunt things down.  Again, hours and hours of tape i'd have to sift through to find things that were extremely public knowledge.  I'm not gonna spend nine hours leading a horse when he's not gonna drink the damned water anyway.

LOL. That's quite Ok. I have my logic all figured out.  I've made a point to discuss my points of view clearly and articulately. I think I've been fair and balanced giving credit where credit is due. You on the other hand, are being lazy by trying to just hand-wave this away. Shame on you.

No shame on YOU.  See above.  Primary sources.  You go back and watch those debates, read all those pre-election papers if you want.  Most of the things he's doing now were campaign promises, and most of them are gonna be found unconstitutional real fast, like most of the things he's tried to implement.  I admit I'm not that sure what your logic is--it mostly seems to be arguing against things i've said (again despite a mountain of evidence supporting my point publicly available).  It's like you WANT me to dig up old articles and debate clips so i can be like SEE THERE!  But this is busywork--again this stuff is common knowledge.  Meanwhile transgendered folks are banned from the US military and you're like oh the source you cited is biased!  Okay maybe.  Are you claiming he DIDN'T ban those folks from the military?  Are you going to argue that this is somehow acceptable?

Are you claiming he didn't gut the EPA and put a climate-change denier in charge?
Are you claiming he didn't put Betsy Devos, who is anti public education, in charge of public education?
Are you claiming he didn't once say that Mexico wasn't sending us their best people but their "rapists" and "drug dealers" and "maybe some good people too," implying that most Mexican Americans fall into one of the first two?
Are you claiming that one of his goals is not to get stop n frisk nationally implemented, where stop-n-frisk clearly constitutes illegal search and seizure?
Are you claiming he hasn't threatened the press for speaking out against him?
Are you claiming that his chief strategist is not a known anti-semite?

These are all moves that dictators make, that fascists make.  Let's start here.  Tell me what you doubt and maybe I'll find a source for you.  One. Source.  To start with.

To summarize: the reason I haven't cited sources is because all of the things I were arguing were easily verified by things Trump had himself said.  It's like asking me to prove that the Great Wall of China exists; sure I could probably track you down some legitimate articles on its construction and preservation, but you know damned well it's there.  You're wasting my time.  This only blocks further progress and discussion and I don't appreciate it.  Hence, no, shame on you, for using slimy logistic tactics when you know damned well yours is the wrong side of the argument.

Quote from: Ralas on March 03, 2016, 06:27:39 am

First off, we don't hate Trump because he "speaks his mind."  We hate him because he is a bumbling, megalomaniac xenophobe who has absolutely no idea how to run a country.

How many of the other candidates have experience running the country?
Zip.
This is a new experience for any candidate unless they are being re-elected, and with it comes a sharp learning curve.

Quote

  He thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists and all Muslims are terrorists.

That is not what he's said and is not accurate. Replace the "all" with "some" and you'll be a bit closer.  As for what he thinks, it's not knowable and not really relevant.

Quote

  His most concrete plans involve building walls, doing "something" about Muslims, and replacing Obamacare with "IDK something better."

What's interesting about this point is that when candidates spout off about specific plans, they typically don't carry through once elected. I suspect it's because they are not privy to the whole story until they are in. ( That or they are just spouting bullshit ). Given this, I'm fine with a rough idea and some history of competence in an executive position.

Quote

Trump can't even maintain diplomatic relations with Fox News, who is universally recognized to have a huge bias toward his own side of the aisle.  Can you imagine him at peace talks between Palestine and Israel?  Things would blow up.  More than they already do, I mean.

You have a point there , but I don't think FOX news was interested in supporting him specifically. Remember, he's hitting for the Republicans but he's not bound by them like Cruz and Rubio ( who would be completely helpless without their money ). When a candidate is entirely dependent on their sponsor's money, they are their bitch ( or puppet ). Trump is neither - like Romney( who I despised for reasons not relevant to this topic ) he has his own money and/or means of raising it.

Quote

As far as Socialism goes...that whole thing about the safety net (Welfare, Unemployment, etc) is complete hogwash.  It's often spouted by conservatives in favor of "trickle-down economics," which has been failing to work since at least the Nixon era.  People aren't fundamentally lazy--sure maybe a few of them are.

There are entire communities where people make a lifestyle out of living off of welfare and food stamps. Some kids grow up thinking that "EBT" cards are the same as "DEBIT" cards. ( They are plastic cards that are used to distribute money to poor people electronically - not the same as a card that gives you access to money you have earned. ) I would cite some references, but I really don't want people accusing me of being racist or anti-religious or anti-semetic or whatever. It's a sticky topic. If you want to know more about it, google it.

Quote

But you'll notice the evidence for this is always anecdotal.  When arguing politics with a conservative friend after a few too many G&T's he will inevitably mention his uncle's friend's cousin's wife's roommate who lives in a shack and doesn't work so that he can get welfare.  I'm not saying that these people don't exist, but they are a statistically negligent minority.

Let's see... Bronx, Harlem, Kiryas Joel to name a few. We're not talking about some lazy college kid who found a way to beat the system. ( Not all people in these areas are on welfare, but many are. ) This is not anecdotal. Here's some details of the percentage of folks who are getting food stamps etc...  ( Mind you, these food stamps are paid for by people with jobs - many of which are struggling to feed their own families )
http://frac.org/pdf/ny_times_snap_poverty_formatted.pdf

Quote

Most people who use the safety net want desperately to get off of it. 

I applaud those who are caught by the net, get up and recover. That's one example of proper use. For those who are genuinely disabled or who need a hand temporarily, they too are using this resource as intended.

Quote

Think also about how a wider safety net would likely increase innovation.  For instance, I would love to quit my current job and start a business, but I'm afraid of what will happen if my business fails and I can't pay my rent.

I don't think giving out more money is going to breed incentive. Rewarded behavior tends to repeat. Giving money is essentially giving a reward.

As for starting your own business, I would love to work for myself too, but similarly, I don't know how I would transition from from my job to self employment  AND ensure that I make the same amount of money and benefits or more. I don't think welfare is going to help with that. For that, you probably need to take some business classes or seek a mentor.

I apologize for not apologizing sooner.  Sarras, you implied an idiocy on my part that I think you should know is not there, so I felt no need to respond.  Rigwyn, nothing you posted was a sensible argument against what Trump had himself said in the debates and through other media outlets.  Like, you can't ask me to prove something he's already readily admitted to.  So it didn't seem worth my time to help you diagnose your logic.

What he has done since he has taken office again proves me right.  As if there weren't a mound of evidence already, now there's this:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/opinion/donald-trump-scouts-tradition.html?mwrsm=Facebook&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com

Oh well man at least we didn't get stuck with a woman who (legally) deleted (private) emails, right?

Whoa, buddy. Shilling for Hill much? Did she pay or threaten you with "disappearance under mysterious circumstances"? `Cause there is no way in Hell anyone sane would vote for that hag otherwise.

Why not?  Do you have anything bad to say about her, anything at all, that isn't easily debunked?  Because when you look at all the reasons people have for hating her, the vast majority of it is baseless.  I have yet to see a solid argument against her that some quick research won't disprove.

And it's a coup because Trump worked with the Russian government and the head of the FBI to knowingly spread misinformation about his opponent and to wrongly bring about suspicion of her in the week prior to the election (again, the feds admitted they had nothing on her, but by then the damage had been done) in order to subvert the will of the people (remember by at least 3 million popular votes) and steal the election.

It gets frustrating making well-articulated, carefully crated posts only to see people spew the same baseless garbage, so please don't expect a response if your next posts are of the same quality.

Why are we still arguing about this?  The US has been overtaken by a treasonous, fascist coup.  Even those of you who were pro-Trump prior to the election must see that by now.  Now there is nothing left to do but civil disobedience.

This thread makes me so angry, sad, and ashamed to be an American that I don't even know where to begin.

First off, we don't hate Trump because he "speaks his mind."  We hate him because he is a bumbling, megalomaniac xenophobe who has absolutely no idea how to run a country.  He thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists and all Muslims are terrorists.  His most concrete plans involve building walls, doing "something" about Muslims, and replacing Obamacare with "IDK something better."

Trump can't even maintain diplomatic relations with Fox News, who is universally recognized to have a huge bias toward his own side of the aisle.  Can you imagine him at peace talks between Palestine and Israel?  Things would blow up.  More than they already do, I mean.

As far as Socialism goes...that whole thing about the safety net (Welfare, Unemployment, etc) is complete hogwash.  It's often spouted by conservatives in favor of "trickle-down economics," which has been failing to work since at least the Nixon era.  People aren't fundamentally lazy--sure maybe a few of them are.  But you'll notice the evidence for this is always anecdotal.  When arguing politics with a conservative friend after a few too many G&T's he will inevitably mention his uncle's friend's cousin's wife's roommate who lives in a shack and doesn't work so that he can get welfare.  I'm not saying that these people don't exist, but they are a statistically negligent minority.  Most people who use the safety net want desperately to get off of it.  Think also about how a wider safety net would likely increase innovation.  For instance, I would love to quit my current job and start a business, but I'm afraid of what will happen if my business fails and I can't pay my rent.