i could actually see an argument that trump committed no crimes

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 157
#121
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@FLRW
Yeah, right. Not like the Black Panther Party members did. 
That was basically tossed "a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
This bullshit indictment should too since it is purely political and nothing short of obscene legal theories.

Notwithstanding, calling for the death of someone who had absolutely zero impact on your shitty vote is absolutely pathetic. 
You will never be taken seriously at this website. Ever. 

#122
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 404
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
I bet you inappropriately touch your cat
It sounds like a joke more than an insult. Still, it is irrelevant to the topic.

#123
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,664
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
He could get away with murder
#124
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Barney
What does that 📺  series have to do with anything in this thread? 
#125
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
IWRA isn’t educated enough to understand that salient fact of economics. 
So not only do you have a great legal mind you are also have an excellent understanding of economics. 

And All this without a real college degree

#126
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
You will never be taken seriously at this website. Ever. 
Yes, he is. You are not. 

#127
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
There is only onepossible cause: printing too much money.
That’s nonsense. Inflation is caused by an imbalance between supply and demand. 

If supply is constrained while demand remains constant, prices go up.

If demand goes up while supply remains constant, prices go up.

#128
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
He could get away with murder...
or, wait for it... He could get away with.... INSURRECTION!

#129
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,664
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
Trump said he could get away with shooting someone on the street. The show did a parody of that very statement, showing what the likely reaction would be were such to actually occur.

This is only made worse by some republican rallies openly embracing Homelander (a deranged mass murderer, albeit, a handsome one) as a mascot.

I do not think Trump and Homelander are the same person, even while some of Homelander's plots criticize the cult of personality.


tl;dr:
Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commit
#130
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,664
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm dead!
☠️☠️☠️
#131
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Barney
Google the dictionary and look up the term “hyperbole.” 
#132
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,319
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Barney
Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commit
Well yeah, they have the tremendous legal argument of "But what about Hunter", that pretty much exonerates Trump.  

They are running against Hunter Biden in 2024, at least Hunter's a real person, in 1992 they ran against a fictional TV character named Murphy Brown.
#133
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
What about Jared?
#134
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,319
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Barney
Google the dictionary and look up the term “hyperbole.” - TWS1405_2
I looked it up for you Barn.

hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

So I think his point is, when Trump took the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", it was hyperbole.

It just wasn't meant to be taken seriously, especially all that Constitution stuff.

#135
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,664
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Sidewalker
In fairness towards Trump, I have doubts about any president since Washington taking the oath of office seriously.


Well yeah, they have the tremendous legal argument of "But what about Hunter", that pretty much exonerates Trump.  
"Hitler"?! About about Bill Clinton!!! Oh you say Hitler murdered countless millions of people, but what about Bill Clinton?!

And yeah, seeing how I never voted for either Clinton, I don't get why whataboutbillclinton keeps being brought up as it were on topic to anything.
#136
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,319
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Barney
And yeah, seeing how I never voted for either Clinton, I don't get why whataboutbillclinton keeps being brought up as it were on topic to anything.
I've never voted for a Clinton or a Trump, in 2016 I voted for Gary Johnson and EVERY single Clinton supporter I knew insisted that I voted for Trump, and EVERY single Trumper I knew insisted that I voted for Hillary, nope, I voted Johnson., it was everybody else that was voting against somebody, not me
#137
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,664
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Sidewalker
That mentality is why I stopped buying Cards Against Humanity, as they openly declared not supporting Clinton was somehow supporting Trump.

I generally don't mind them being political, but I really hate that poor logic.

...

I view a vote for a third party to be a vote of no confidence to the two-party system (unlike just not voting, which counts for nothing). If I lived in a swing state I'd handle it differently.
#138
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
@TWS1405_2
Grey parrot is batting 100 for spotting useless ad hominems. Maybe he should be the mod.
#139
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
tl;dr:
Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commit
If anyone didn't defend any crime you would probably say "well that one isn't a loyalist".

If "Trump loyalist" = "will defend any crime" then you stated a useless tautology that borders on deceptive language.

If that's now how you would define "Trump Loyalist" they say it openly that your assertion may be rendered falsifiable.
#140
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And yet accurately defining them and spotting them is an entirely different matter where his record is concerned. 

I mean really, classifying a valid observation that all can see and affirm, stating same as a clear observation, just does not = an ad hom. 
#141
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TWS1405_2
"[Insert Name] isn’t educated enough to understand that salient fact of economics."
Either advances no argument or it is a fallacy.
#142
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
--> 
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
"[Insert Name] isn’t educated enough to understand that salient fact of economics."
Either advances no argument or it is a fallacy.

Please. Don’t be coy or passive here.
It’s an observation. One is either educated in subject matter A, or they are not educated in subject matter A. It’s a fact based observation. It’s truth. Truth by definition cannot be a fallacy.

And if establishing someone lacks the requisite education in subject A, that translates to them having zero credibility to discuss subject A in the manner in which they are purporting themselves in subject A, as if they were a subject matter expert without the requisite knowledge and experience in said subject matter. Whew. That was a mouthful.

Regardless, pointing out they they lack the education does advance the argument in discounting their ignorant nonsense so others actually educated in the subject may advance said subject further without the nonsensical distraction of the one putting forth uneducated commentary. 
#143
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.
#144
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TWS1405_2
It’s an observation. One is either educated in subject matter A, or they are not educated in subject matter A.
and it doesn't matter in a debate either way.


Truth by definition cannot be a fallacy.
A purported but false implication of truth can be.


that translates to them having zero credibility to discuss subject A
If you're talking about credibility you're already off the reservation as far as debate goes. Appeal to authority when trying to use credibility. Poisoning the well when trying to deny authority (often when it is not even invoked).


Regardless, pointing out they they lack the education does advance the argument in discounting their ignorant nonsense
Discountenance for that reason is known fallacy.


You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.
Then it was over reach and patently absurd when Greyparrot was forbidden from responding to insults in kind. Inequitable application of rules or interpretations of rules is intolerable.

A debate site is by definition a place where cultural opposition to fallacies is of the greatest utility and no fallacy is easier to identify than ad hominems, so I'll accept no rule and I'll except a uniform ban of ad hominems but I won't accept double standards.

If nothing else there will be a nice long list of all the times this 'interpretation' failed to be enforced if it is called upon again to silence someone.

#145
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It’s an observation. One is either educated in subject matter A, or they are not educated in subject matter A.
and it doesn't matter in a debate either way.

LOL!! You’re joking, right?? 

Anyone worth their salt in debate/discussion knows full well that… “Credibility is essential to establish in a debate, otherwise the other side(s) will have no reason to consider your points.” Additionally… “If you have pertinent experience with the topic of debate, making that experience and the associated knowledge known will help establish you as an authority on that topic, which in turn will grant you credibility. ”


So yeah, it does matter. 

Truth by definition cannot be a fallacy.
A purported but false implication of truth can be.
Nothing I put forth was such. What I said is truth, and he proved it with his follow up “bullshit” responses. 

that translates to them having zero credibility to discuss subject A
If you're talking about credibility you're already off the reservation as far as debate goes. Appeal to authority when trying to use credibility. Poisoning the well when trying to deny authority (often when it is not even invoked).
Quoting out of context fallacy and strawman fallacy. In either case, go back to the top of this reply and re-read what I quoted regarding credibility. You’re wrong. Period. 

Regardless, pointing out they they lack the education does advance the argument in discounting their ignorant nonsense
Discountenance for that reason is known fallacy.
No it’s not. Interesting you didn’t even name the alleged fallacy. Either way makes no difference. You’re still wrong. 

You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.
Then it was over reach and patently absurd when Greyparrot was forbidden from responding to insults in kind. Inequitable application of rules or interpretations of rules is intolerable.
Ha ha. Where was he denied such? 

A debate site is by definition a place where cultural opposition to fallacies is of the greatest utility and no fallacy is easier to identify than ad hominems, so I'll accept no rule and I'll except a uniform ban of ad hominems but I won't accept double standards.
Then there needs to be a clear cut definition with examples of what an ad hominem is for this site’s purposes. Because half the shit some of you people whine about are NOT ad hominems.

Some of you people need to learn and know/understand the difference between a noun used @ the person vs an adjective describing the attitude, behavior, demeanor exhibited by a person. One can be and is often used as an ad hom (@ the person) while the other clearly is not. 

#146
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,664
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
tl;dr:
Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commit
If anyone didn't defend any crime you would probably say "well that one isn't a loyalist".
Trump openly committed treason (call it sedition if you like), and he's still a popular enough politician to have a good chance at being reelected. Therefore I am not being deceptive by referring to a few odd-ball crazies in the mix but rather a mass cult of personality.

...

I have the advantage of not being a political ideologue, which makes me able to say fuck Trump and fuck Biden.  Hell, not that long ago Obama had ideologue supporters as well; it was a problem then and it's a problem now. Politicians should not be placed on some pedestal as if they are the messiah.
#147
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,319
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.
I guess none of us are educated enough to know what "militantancy" means. but hey, you guys should stop it anyway.
#148
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then it was over reach and patently absurd when Greyparrot was forbidden from responding to insults in kind. Inequitable application of rules or interpretations of rules is intolerable.

A debate site is by definition a place where cultural opposition to fallacies is of the greatest utility and no fallacy is easier to identify than ad hominems, so I'll accept no rule and I'll except a uniform ban of ad hominems but I won't accept double standards.

If nothing else there will be a nice long list of all the times this 'interpretation' failed to be enforced if it is called upon again to silence someone.

Yep. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. I didn't make the rules.

#149
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 404
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Barney
The main problem is US two party system mentality.

3rd party doesnt stand a chance.

Also, you only have two candidates to pick from, really.

Biden is beating everyone in the democratic party by far. Its not even a competition at this point.

Trump is beating everyone in the republican party by far. In fact, Trump humiliated all other republican candidates by saying he will win even if he doesnt show up in public debate, because they are all at 0 to 13 points, where Trump is at 57 points. He scores more than all the others together, let alone individually.

So its Trump or Biden. In my opinion, democrats should have given support to someone other than Biden. But they didnt. 
#150
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
Trump openly committed treason (call it sedition if you like), and he's still a popular enough politician to have a good chance at being reelected. Therefore I am not being deceptive by referring to a few odd-ball crazies in the mix but rather a mass cult of personality.
Well then give a definition that includes the mass cult of personality you reference.



I have the advantage of not being a political ideologue, which makes me able to say fuck Trump and fuck Biden.
The ability to dislike both sides of a fight doesn't prove you're rational.


Politicians should not be placed on some pedestal as if they are the messiah.
It is not proven that the only possible reason to support Trump is the belief in his messiahship.