trump's appeal to the cognitively challenged

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 62
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
degrees and college entrances can be purchased anyway.  the standards and requirements at all levels of education has been lowered and that trend continues so I find no real validity in claims of college = intelligence.
plenty of intelligent people have gone to trade schools, started business etc
how many college grads work at places like Starbucks?  whatever degree they have, doesn't sound like that was a very intelligent choice.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You should have waited for me to update my post lol.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
yeah that was the final nail in that coffin lol
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there were far more reasons to not vote for Clinton than to vote for Trump
+1.

For some reason, democrats are blind to the fact that Trump won largely because they selected one of few candidates worse than him.

Most Trump votes were simply anyone-but-Hillary votes.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Stronn
and look a the ones running for 2020, they haven't learned a single thing from what happened, at this point I hope he wins again.
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is a statement coming from a poll, a statistical poll that is not based on fact.  Therefore, there is no evidence to support or contradict, that is why it is wrong for you to spread it as fact.  I am not saying that what I say is fact, either.
So polls are not factual?  No they are not, they are stats from a sample size.... They are not like fact, like gravity is a fact.
It self defeated Clinton, it did not help her to call half the country deplorable, it made them dislike her even more.  If people were on the fence, this probably put many in the Trump category. I don't know why I had to explain that.
You said "calling people deplorable" is self-defeating. This does not in anyway address that. You don't understand for something to be self-defeating it would mean the person saying something contradicts what they are saying or doesn't help them. You have not told me the intention behind Clinton saying deplorable instead accepted as something that did not help her win half the country. You didn't provide evidence to state the intent behind statement and evidence of what occurred later on that made it self defeating.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I am comparing N8 calling half the country stupid to Clinton calling half the country deplorable.  Are you saying that what she said wasn't self defeating?  It is one thing that contributed to losing the race for Presidency.  And she said it during her campaign, not before.
That was an assumption based on his uneducated base position.
A person can be uneducated without being an inbred who has no social skills. You basically made a remark that is not logical to what the person who made this topic brought up. Even this assumption is far-fetched.
Why would anyone choose to measure that statistic?
You can find reasons why the data is like that. That is why people try to find reasons in data. You make it seem as though every single data is not used to find out why this occurs.
The analytics crew, or polling crew made a hypothesis and distorted findings or picked and chose ways to make that hypothesis seem feasible.
How is the data distorted?  Because that is what they do.  They say things and report things that support their agenda.  This applies to all MSM.
The left says they do not judge people by their beliefs, yet you are doing exactly that.  Putting people in the dumb group.  That is hypocritical.
This does not matter too much but evidence?
And what I am saying is your researchers are biased, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, including that "quote" above.
Biased doesn't mean wrong. The burden is on you to state that this bias is impacting their research so much that it is distorting data like you said earlier on.
This was just a side note,  not proof of anything.
1 out 4 paragraphs were dedicated to a "side note". You could have easily removed that if you are incapable of defending your stance but you didn't. Do you want to change what your anecdote represents?
I agree, they will not stop, but sooner or later, people will catch on, and they will be, and have been losing a lot of viewership due to that fact.  They will soon go the way of the National Enquirer, reading things they want to believe to keep themselves entertained. 
You need data to say how Fox and CNN will lose revenue eventually due to the spreading of false information.  No I don't.  I am saying I hope they do.

CNN and MSNBC have been focused on Barr and Mueller non stop for 24 hours, and not reporting on anything else that is happening in or outside of the country.... unless it has to do with "Trump is bad"
What has this got to do with anything? They are the news and they are reporting on what is relevant. What have you got against that?

It is not news, it is more speculation, some "news" outlets do it more than others.
I'm sure there are dumb (gullible and inability to critically think) people on both sides of the isle.
If you agree with that why are you against the creator of this topic using data to find Trump supporters did poorly in an intellectual ability test compared to Hillary supporters? 

He is talking about a hardly comprehensive test that concluded "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.

This is not fact, yet he is taking it as fact, and spreading it around.  I don't need research and people to tell me what to believe, backing it up by crap research projects, and statistics that have been skewed so people like N8 can spread this around and try to make people feel like they are in the dumb category.  This is the same thing that Russia did, only the other way around.  Might as well include him in the Russian interference.

WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
TRUMP would not be in the White House IF...........IF the CLOWNS of CONGRESS truly served the needs of LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS

Congress and the Presidency are nothing more than PUPPET THEATER...all the PUPPETS are on strings being pulled by outside special interests
and all the PUPPETS are TEMPORARY....furthermore,

99% are just fast talking Circus CLOWNS who serve themselves to play for other positions and TITLES after they leave the CONGRESSIONAL CIRCUS...

TRUMP is TEMPORARY as is the boost in the job market and financial sectors....all of it cycles BULL and BEAR every 10 - 15 years...either during
TRUMP's next 4 years if he is makes it there will be a horrific CRASH...as OIL - COAL - LABOR JOBS and low level service jobs hit the skids again

AMERICA is on a tightrope as CHINA - INDIA - EUROPE  - BRAZIL - RUSSIA - ARAB states...will regroup with new technology and infrastructure 
to not depend on AMERICA anymore as the leading economy....the US DOLLAR will fall and be replaced  with blockchain technology cards...
as CASH fades globally more of humanity will be easily tracked...and accessible...CHINA and INDIA have far superior mass manufacturing 
capability and the population to do it with...

TRUMP is just a BLIP on the timeline going forward...by MID CENTURY 2050 all of TRUMP's generation will be long gone and forgotten....many
will drop dead from old age....

This election is the LAST for the OLD generation it is their SWANSONG....

ONCE YOU IDIOTS stop wasting time and effort on some HORRIFIC OBSOLETE DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN party JOKE and focus
on hiring true FACILITATORS of positive results for the LEGAL CITIZENS..including HEALTH CARE - EDUCATION - HOUSING and INFRASTRUCTURE.....then and only then will POSITIVE RESULTS MANIFEST...till then it's all just a Game of Thrones for the Old Guard...

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
No they are not, they are stats from a sample size.... They are not like fact, like gravity is a fact.
From the sample size it is a fact that "Trump voters, on average, performed more poorly than Hillary Clinton supporters on a standard test widely regarded as a good indicator of intellectual ability."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Tell me how it is self-defeating.
I am comparing N8 calling half the country stupid to Clinton calling half the country deplorable.
He was parroting data which said on average a sample size of Trump supporters were less educated than a sample size of Hillary supporters. 
Are you saying that what she said wasn't self defeating?  It is one thing that contributed to losing the race for Presidency.  And she said it during her campaign, not before.
Prove that this was a contributor.
How was that statement made by Hillary self-defeating and do bring in the definition of self-defeating as well?
That was an assumption based on his uneducated base position.
A person can be uneducated without being an inbred who has no social skills. You basically made a remark that is not logical to what the person who made this topic brought up. Even this assumption is far-fetched.
Why would anyone choose to measure that statistic?
You can find reasons why the data is like that. That is why people try to find reasons in data. You make it seem as though every single data is not used to find out why this occurs.
You basically copied what I said and didn't reply. Are you going to reply to what I said?
Because that is what they do.  They say things and report things that support their agenda.  This applies to all MSM.
I don't want to talk about generalisations when this is about one specific topic. Can you prove the data here was distorted?
The left says they do not judge people by their beliefs, yet you are doing exactly that.  Putting people in the dumb group.  That is hypocritical.
This does not matter too much but evidence?
And what I am saying is your researchers are biased, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, including that "quote" above.
Biased doesn't mean wrong. The burden is on you to state that this bias is impacting their research so much that it is distorting data like you said earlier on.
This was just a side note,  not proof of anything.
1 out 4 paragraphs were dedicated to a "side note". You could have easily removed that if you are incapable of defending your stance but you didn't. Do you want to change what your anecdote represents?
You quoted me again without responding to what I said. Are you going to respond?
No I don't.  I am saying I hope they do.
Where is the "hope" in what you said? You basically said "I agree, they will not stop, but sooner or later, people will catch on, and they will be, and have been losing a lot of viewership due to that fact.". You said "fact" as in not at the very least not "hope" which means you require evidence for it to be so. Do you have any?
It is not news, it is more speculation, some "news" outlets do it more than others.
Yes they are news. It is a a report of recent events (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/news) since the Barr stuff is recent events your claims that it isn't news is wrong therefore I require more than just no it isn't news or you can concede this point. I don't know what you are talking about after "It is not news" so I won't talk about it.
He is talking about a hardly comprehensive test that concluded "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.

This is not fact, yet he is taking it as fact, and spreading it around.  I don't need research and people to tell me what to believe, backing it up by crap research projects, and statistics that have been skewed so people like N8 can spread this around and try to make people feel like they are in the dumb category.  This is the same thing that Russia did, only the other way around.  Might as well include him in the Russian interference.
Completely nonsensical. The claim wasn't that the cognitive ability was objectively good instead it is a fact on average with the sample size Trump supporters are less intelligent than Hillary supporters with that specific test. You can't deny that and if you do you are pretty much denying data to be factual. Then you state it is a "crap research" without proving it then you say "statistics that have been skewed" then you say "include him (n8nrgmi) in the Russian interference." This in no way provides a points for you because you are unable to point the flaws of the test instead make some claims you have not supported with no evidence. 
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
education and intelligence is correlated. google it if you don't believe me. this is as basic as it gets factually, and ya'll r tryin to deny it. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not denying that correlation. We are disputing what you are classifying as "education"

Nearly 40% of all colleges in the USA have 0% conservative professors. That means 40% of "educated" people have never learned anything except one side of every issue. That's certainly not the hallmark of an intelligent person, or even a measure of education in the classical meaning of education.
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I dont trust Trumpanzees accounting of much of anything regarding Trump, Obama, Hillary etc.  I find Trumpanzee to not be very trustworth humans.

..............
The details are pretty much the same as Trump. Neither WANTED to separate children, but a court ruling by an activist liberal judge made it illegal to keep children with the parents when the parents criminally invaded the country with child in tow.
Afterwards "journalists" took some images from the Obama era with kids in cages and attempted to say Trump, and only Trump was responsible.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@mustardness
That's fine. Ilhan Omar said Trump was not human either.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
10 Millionaires Who Never Graduated College


1. Steve Jobs

clearly a moron, borderline retarded.

10 Billionaires Who Never Went to College


more dummies

55 School Drop Out Billionaires Without College Degree


yup

DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't need to look anything up or prove anything.  The fact that someone did, what I would call, opposition research on who's supporters are smart and who's are dumb is what is nonsensical, and then reporting it to further divide the country is what makes me mad, and it should upset you too.  These people are so far up their own asses that they have to do research to try and understand who these people are that did the unthinkable, which to them is voting for Trump. 

The minds of a group of Never Trumpers:
How can people be so dumb?   Lets do a dumb test and pick a state or an area that we know will work in our favor. Give them some survey questions and some basic elementary educational questions.  Then we will ask them if they voted for Hillary or Trump.  Then if the evidence supports our hypothesis, we will post it for all to see, and it will get reported by MSM.  If it does not support our hypothesis, we just won't post it.

Whatever this test was is biased, just like the polls.  I know this because everything that never Trumpers do is skew things to make Trump look bad and further divide the country.  They did this in 2016, and it contributed to their own demise, and they have not learned their lesson.

Here is the photo of the caged kids.

When I said self defeating, what I meant was, she defeated herself by saying that.  She thought that most of the country would see things her way, but she was wrong in the electoral vote, which democrats are now trying to get rid of.  The electoral vote makes sense though, and just because they lost, they believe it doesn't make sense and are spinning things to try and prove it.  They said Trump would not accept the results of the election if he lost and chastised him for it, but guess who is not accepting it now?  Any way they can they are trying to undo the 2016 election.  Do you think republicans would have acted this way?  Not on your life.

Now they are saying that they cannot charge the President because you cannot indict a sitting president, while I think that is true for some weird reason..,. why do an investigation at all, I thought that was what it was for, even though the report was supposed to be about Russian Meddling, that was not really the main goal? 

And to all these 500 or so former Federal prosecutors signing a petition saying that anyone else would have been indicted if they weren't the president... well, no one would have been investigated like this if he wasn't President.  He could have fired anyone at any time, but he didn't. 

Charge him or don't charge him.... but don't make him prove his innocence, that is not the American way. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
I don't need to look anything up or prove anything.
You don't understand how to make an argument then. In order for your claim to be substantial it requires evidence.
The fact that someone did, what I would call, opposition research on who's supporters are smart and who's are dumb is what is nonsensical, and then reporting it to further divide the country is what makes me mad, and it should upset you too.  These people are so far up their own asses that they have to do research to try and understand who these people are that did the unthinkable, which to them is voting for Trump.  
No evidence given and since you don't think evidence is necessary guess this is your feelings then.
The minds of a group of Never Trumpers:
How can people be so dumb?   Lets do a dumb test and pick a state or an area that we know will work in our favor. Give them some survey questions and some basic elementary educational questions.  Then we will ask them if they voted for Hillary or Trump.  Then if the evidence supports our hypothesis, we will post it for all to see, and it will get reported by MSM.  If it does not support our hypothesis, we just won't post it. 
Evidence?
Whatever this test was is biased, just like the polls.
Biased doesn't mean it is wrong. The burden is on you to state this bias has changed the facts.
 I know this because everything that never Trumpers do is skew things to make Trump look bad and further divide the country. 
You don't know. If you did you would be able to provide information as in evidence to prove that you know anything.
They did this in 2016, and it contributed to their own demise, and they have not learned their lesson.
I am going to keep saying it even though you value feelings over facts. Evidence? 
What does this prove? New source/s used this bad evidence to support their claim? This had nothing to do with the topic at hand and this shows you are able to provide evidence but are not able to provide evidence debunking the opening statement. So in this context you do value facts but when you can't find facts that prove what n8nrgmi is saying is wrong you don't care.
When I said self defeating, what I meant was, she defeated herself by saying that.
Okay.
She thought that most of the country would see things her way, but she was wrong in the electoral vote, which democrats are now trying to get rid of.  
Evidence of any of this?
 The electoral vote makes sense though, and just because they lost, they believe it doesn't make sense and are spinning things to try and prove it.
So basically let me say what you are saying and tell you why the way you are replying back is bad:
The electoral vote doesn't make sense though, and just because they won, they believe it does make sense and are sniping thing to try and prove it.

I simply copied what you said and changed a few words. Since you did not explain how the electoral college makes sense or provide evidence that the democrats wanted to remove it. I don't have to provide evidence to counter what you are saying because your burden is not fulfilled. 
They said Trump would not accept the results of the election if he lost and chastised him for it, but guess who is not accepting it now?
Evidence?
Any way they can they are trying to undo the 2016 election.
Evidence?
Do you think republicans would have acted this way?  Not on your life.
You don't have a leg to stand on with this. There are countless examples which just the last DNC president. 
Now they are saying that they cannot charge the President because you cannot indict a sitting president
This is a complete joke. Nixon was impeached and he stepped because both Republicans and Democrats impeached him and if he did they would have removed him anyway.
while I think that is true for some weird reason..,. 
Why?
Everything else I didn't address because I didn't know what you were talking about. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DBlaze
One thing Hillary and Maduro have in common is that they both resist peaceful transitions of power.
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Evidence of Maduro and Clinton resisting peaceful transition??

Just kidding, I'm pulling an Omar.  I included the picture of the kids in cages during Obama's administration on my last post just because I know it was easy to find.  Most of the other things I have posted are a narrative, it would be a novel of thing, after thing, after thing, after thing, proving why I came to this conclusion.  He wants me to write a book, just because he has not been paying attention to both sides of the isle.



DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nixon was not impeached! He resigned before it happened.  This is why I don't want to look up everything for you.  Just take my word for it on the narrative.

The electoral college takes into account states with a smaller population that have very different needs.  Believe me, our founding fathers were much smarter than anyone we have in congress today.  But you would say, No, they are immoral and dumb because they owned slaves!

Every news station talks about impeachment if they want their candidate in.  That is why we have opposing sides.  But no one took Obama impeachment banter seriously.

I'm saying that republicans would not have fought this hard to try and prove that Hillary was voted in illegitimately if it were the other way around.  They would continue to try to get her out of office, but not to these extremities.  We wouldn't be going around saying "Not my President" like delusional idiots.  They would not have questioned the results.  Trump may have, for a little while, but we wouldn't have fought for two years over proof, and he would probably have Trump Hotel in Moscow right now, so being President did not help him with that venture.  And why do they blame Trump for Russian meddling ability?  Obama was in office and said we didn't have to worry about anything, until we did.    Trump has nothing to do with keeping the votes legitimate, or making sure that people don't send out spearphishing emails.  That is the responsibility of the current administration, not Trump.

But don't worry, Obama said to Putin "Don't do it"!  who would dare disobey Obama?

mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
2016 was the year of the basket of deplorables.
Trump, Putin and Trumpanzees.  You finally beginning to acknowledge common knowedge truths.

2020 is basket of biological/souls battling demon-strators{ strew } of immoral, narccistic, lying accompanied with sociopathic tendencies.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
Nixon was not impeached! He resigned before it happened. 
I said if he did not quit he would be have been kicked out. 
This is why I don't want to look up everything for you.  Just take my word for it on the narrative.
When you actually think you are right even though you don't know what actually occurred.
The electoral college takes into account states with a smaller population that have very different needs. 
Thank you for telling me you are against democracy.
Believe me, our founding fathers were much smarter than anyone we have in congress today.
How are you measuring this?
But you would say, No, they are immoral and dumb because they owned slaves!
Evidence of me saying this? Oh wait I realised you assumed my position as if you know anything about me.
Every news station talks about impeachment if they want their candidate in.  That is why we have opposing sides.  But no one took Obama impeachment banter seriously.
Evidence?
I'm saying that republicans would not have fought this hard to try and prove that Hillary was voted in illegitimately if it were the other way around.  They would continue to try to get her out of office, but not to these extremities. 
Nixon is one example and with Obama there were extreme cases of people finding anything to impeach him on.
"In August 2011, Republican Congressman Michael C. Burgess of Texas agreed with a rally audience member that the impeachment of Barack Obama "needs to happen" in order to prevent Obama from "pushing his agenda".
Isn't this extreme case coming from a Republican Congressman? Oh wait there are actually radicals in the Republican party. I knew that but guess you don't.
We wouldn't be going around saying "Not my President" like delusional idiots. 
No conservatives said Obama was not their president and guess how I prove that? They didn't vote for him. That is what that means. Was Obama your president?
They would not have questioned the results. 
Give me a break. Here the Republican leader questioning voting. Come back to me when you have an actual point.

Everything after this was nonsensical and yet again no evidence. Do you understand how to make an argument or are you going to carry on providing no evidence for your claims?



Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Just to be clear: the freaking Associated Press now says that Trump's approval rating stands at 46%, probably the highest figure of his first presidency. What you are saying, in effect, is that 46% of Americans are cognitively challenged.
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@DBlaze
She thought that most of the country would see things her way, but she was wrong in the electoral vote, which democrats are now trying to get rid of.
Hillary got more of the peoples vote, as did Obama.  70% of Trumps winning was do to Putins meddling/interfering influence of the USA peoples.

Putins approach was to get the dumb { careless and weak } 20% on board with Trump.  Putin will not be stopped this time around either.





Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DBlaze
Omar is clearly one of those "educated 40 percenters" I have been talking about in this thread. For them, anything not indoctrinated requires evidence, because they have never been shown the other side of any issue.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
That's 2% higher than Obama going into his re-election.
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
We still have a year and a half.  

If I were running for Pres to challenge him, I would wait as long as I could.  The Democrats are going to tear each other apart for the next year.  It is no holds barred when it comes to the next election, it seems to be more and more scandalous, scrutinized, diabolical and outright mean every year.  They are going to go after anything and everything to discredit, humiliate, or maybe even throw each other in jail. 

I think they are more separated than the Republicans now, with all of those Freshman, who are also in the 40% that you mentioned.    
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DBlaze
I'm fairly sure the 40% problem also explains why there is so much TDS in the country, especially among the "educated"
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I’m having trouble copying and pasting... so I hope you can relate my answers to your questions.

you said he was impeached, I can understand if you mistyped, my apologies. I do know what actually occurred. You are fighting me on everything when you mistyped your post.

Im for a republic, which the United States is... a Federal Republic, not a democracy. I guess you need evidence of that? 

Because Congress sucks these days.. They are beholden to the party and special interests too much.  Our Founding fathers could have structured something way off base to give someone, anyone, the upper hand, they put in checks and balances, they did unbelievably well considering the experience they had. You can’t account for everything, but amendments were necessary. Their writing skills are beyond beautiful, and capture what they wanted the new world to be like, using a vocabulary that surpasses some of the most educated (not intelligent), people of our time. I guess you need evidence of that?

you are right, I made an assumption based on your arguments in the past about the statues and monuments that you say glorify slave owners, and I say, regardless, they are still a part of United States history.

If they took Obama being born outside the US seriously, then proceedings would have happened, a full blown investigation would have taken place, but it was too ridiculous to proceed, regardless if it was true or not..  Dems and the administration started a full blown investigation right away when Trump said in his campaign , “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with Russia?”  Or before that. I guess you need evidence for that.

There are radicals in the Republican Party and they can all kiss my ass. Another reason why I say our four fathers are smarter than congress.

President Obama was my president, I had no qualms with that. I hoped for change as well, he won the Presidency which gives him the title of President Obama, which I would and should type out every time I write that name... but unfortunately I get lazy. I’m not delusional.. I live here, and not to admit who the president of the USA is, is just crazy. That is living in a non reality.  I don’t know about you, but I think it is best to acknowledge reality, it’s pretty much the definition of crazy if you don’t.

i really don’t consider twitter as evidence of anything.  The whole point of them asking Trump, during the debates, if he would accept defeat is because of these allegations of voter fraud, which is much worse than Russia starting some Facebook accounts. But they still can’t accept defeat when that is the issue.... but wait, where is my evidence? I don’t need it. If you have paid attention the past three years, you would understand why I shouldn’t have to post evidence of any of this.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
you said he was impeached, I can understand if you mistyped, my apologies. I do know what actually occurred. You are fighting me on everything when you mistyped your post.
I copy what I said initially. 
This is a complete joke. Nixon was impeached and he stepped because both Republicans and Democrats impeached him and if he did they would have removed him anyway.
I could have worded that better. What I was trying to say that if Nixon did not step down he would have been impeached. Both would have still resulted in the same result. 
Im for a republic, which the United States is... a Federal Republic, not a democracy. I guess you need evidence of that? 
No I don't need evidence for you personal but if you say it is better than a democracy then I require evidence that supports your claims which you deem to the measurements you think a republic is better than a democracy.
Because Congress sucks these days.. They are beholden to the party and special interests too much.  Our Founding fathers could have structured something way off base to give someone, anyone, the upper hand, they put in checks and balances, they did unbelievably well considering the experience they had. You can’t account for everything, but amendments were necessary. 
As much I want to agree with this I still need more than just this. I can simply say no because Congress is amazing. Founding fathers are awful and I think Congress do so much more than what the Founding Fathers did. Nothing is being conceded apart from our claims and since I can make stuff up it does not hold too much substance and when you provide evidence we can use standards to decide who has the better supported argument. If evidence is not given then my claim is just as good as yours because you haven't proved yours and I haven't proved mine and we are just arguing claims not anything more substantial.
Their writing skills are beyond beautiful, and capture what they wanted the new world to be like, using a vocabulary that surpasses some of the most educated (not intelligent), people of our time. I guess you need evidence of that?
I don't really care about what you like about the Founding Fathers so I don't need evidence for what you like.
you are right, I made an assumption based on your arguments in the past about the statues and monuments that you say glorify slave owners, and I say, regardless, they are still a part of United States history.
I just realised you were the that person. I don't think you have improved your arguments from then so I doubt you would have something that states statues/monuments are in any measurement a better source of information than books. 
If they took Obama being born outside the US seriously, then proceedings would have happened, a full blown investigation would have taken place, but it was too ridiculous to proceed, regardless if it was true or not..
You can't think this when you have the president claiming he was a little skeptical about Obama's place of birth. He pretty much parroted conspiracy theories of less relevant people and gave it a larger platform. Since Obama did decide to release the birth certificate Republicans can't launch a full blown investigation on the basis on that. To say something is too ridicoulous to proceed is leaving out the fact that Trump is the president of the United States. This guy says things which are basically conspiracy theories which is about Obama's place of birth or illegal voting. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
Dems and the administration started a full blown investigation right away when Trump said in his campaign , “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with Russia?”  Or before that. I guess you need evidence for that.
You have your dates wrong if you think this investigation started because of it. Special counsel was appointed in 2017 and I am guessing he said that to Putin when he met him in public or on Twitter so that would be around 16 July 2018. 
There are radicals in the Republican Party and they can all kiss my ass. Another reason why I say our four fathers are smarter than congress.
Okay.
President Obama was my president, I had no qualms with that. I hoped for change as well, he won the Presidency which gives him the title of President Obama, which I would and should type out every time I write that name... but unfortunately I get lazy. I’m not delusional.. I live here, and not to admit who the president of the USA is, is just crazy. That is living in a non reality.  I don’t know about you, but I think it is best to acknowledge reality, it’s pretty much the definition of crazy if you don’t.
The not my president from what I read was about people pretty much saying I didn't vote for him not they are denying the election. I would like a source for this person denying what occurred instead of simply being shocked or simply stated not my president as in I wouldn't vote for him and I don't like him.
i really don’t consider twitter as evidence of anything. 
He shouldn't have made a tweet about a conspiracy theory that he can find no proof for. 
The whole point of them asking Trump, during the debates, if he would accept defeat is because of these allegations of voter fraud, which is much worse than Russia starting some Facebook accounts. But they still can’t accept defeat when that is the issue.... but wait, where is my evidence? I don’t need it. If you have paid attention the past three years, you would understand why I shouldn’t have to post evidence of any of this.
I don't know what your point is here so I can't even ask for evidence if I don't understand what claim your are making. 

DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
You have not posted any evidence to the contrary of my claims, so you are right, we both can just say anything right now.  I don't have the time to write a research paper.

I'm not going to talk about statues being a better source of information than books again, I never said that they were in the first place.  You made that up.  I said that they build interest.

"Not my President" means exactly what it says.  What you are saying is the same thing, either denial, or I didn't vote for him, or if you are an immigrant.. doesn't really matter.   It's just crazy and is promoting division.

Trumps birther movement was brought up before and during his campaign and he was using everything he could to win the Presidency, and setting it up to run.  Have you heard him use any of the terms that he used during the campaign while he has been President?  Like Lyin' Ted, or Little Marco... etc.  No because he is no longer running for President, he is president. 


"He shouldn't have made a tweet about a conspiracy theory that he can find no proof for"
What?  Proof for a conspiracy theory?  Then it wouldn't be a theory.
That is why it is called a conspiracy theory, there is no proof, just like the conspiracy theory about Trump conspiring or colluding with Russia.  Are you saying that they shouldn't have investigated something that they had no proof for?

He said wouldn't it be great if we got a long with Russia multiple times during his campaign and his rallies.  He also said it during the debates, not when he met with Putin afterwards.  This was before he was pres.

The mediator asked Trump during the debates if he would accept the results if he lost, he said, we have to wait and see.  Then it was all over the news that he did not say that he would.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, where Hilary, the MSM and democrats are doing the exact same thing, saying that him not winning was illegitimate.  It's hipocracy.