Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Subduction Zone]

And how can we trust Ukraine in their investigation of us? There's no oversight. No requirement they share with us except for what they choose. How do we know they're not corrupt or playing some game on us? Basically, we're supposed to trust them more than Americans. Very unpatriotic in my view.

They are smarter than Trump. They realize to get involved either way is a losing game for them. Sooner or later Trump and his lot will be gone. And they do not want to insult the following administration.

But I am rather amazed of those that would never trust another country for this sort of thing all of a sudden trusting them when they investigate an opponent of their new god.

 

[Cooky]

They are smarter than Trump. They realize to get involved either way is a losing game for them. Sooner or later Trump and his lot will be gone. And they do not want to insult the following administration.

But I am rather amazed of those that would never trust another country for this sort of thing all of a sudden trusting them when they investigate an opponent of their new god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 33437

You know that is true for you. A sane person would run from supporting Donald.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And now for the lighter side. Just watch the first six minutes or so:

 

[Callisto]

And now for the lighter side. Just watch the first six minutes or so:

Nickelback are Canadian, adding to the list of foreigners he's attempted to get help from to attack political rivals. There's just no end to the madness!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nickelback are Canadian, adding to the list of foreigners he's attempted to get help from to attack political rivals. There's just no end to the madness!

I learned one thing in that video. I was totally unaware of the texting back and forth by at least one diplomat that knew what Trump was up to. I saw the following video earlier tonight and the joke about that went over my head:

 

[Jollybear]

That is not what I said or implied. O'Reilly could try to regain his credibility. He has not even tried. Until he does so he is a worthless source. But you are right on one point. O'Reilly proved himself to be an idiot. And name calling is against the rules here. Plus you are in a very very poor situation to be using that term for others.

That is EXACTLY what you said and implied and you just said it again.

You sir, have absolutely no idea what ad hominum means.

Here is wikis definition >

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

You do not live up to that definition via your actions. Start learning to do so.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The criminal act is asking another country for dirt on a potential opponent, thereby asking them to interfere in our election.

That is treason.

Just as Hillary and Fusion GPS did against Trump?
Am I correct?
Did you see what Obama, Biden, his son, Hillary, did with over 4 billion rand to the Ukraine did?
Do you know they worked with the most corrupt bankers to make the money dissappear?
Burisma holdings eventually are the ones who got the money.
Guess who is working for them

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is EXACTLY what you said and implied and you just said it again.

You sir, have absolutely no idea what ad hominum means.

Here is wikis definition >

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

You do not live up to that definition via your actions. Start learning to do so.

As usual I understand what an ad hominem is far better than you do. You went for a shallow answerable than a deeper understanding. This source is better:

ad hominem fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

"The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody's claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted. Calling into question the reliability of a witness is relevant when the issue is whether to trust the witness. It is irrelevant, however, to call into question the reliability or morality or anything else about a person when the issue is whether that person's reasons for making a claim are good enough reasons to support the claim."

I did not just call Bill an idiot. I also explained why that meant he could not be trusted. You conflated an ad hominem attack, which may or may not be justified, with an ad hominem fallacy.

Think of it this way, an ad hominem fallacy includes an attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If I said that Bill is ugly, a true statement but still an ad hominem attack, therefore we should not believe him that would be an ad hominem fallacy, since looks have nothing to do with honesty. When I say that Bill is an idiot, a provable claim ( "tide goes in tide goes out") and he does not have a valid reason for his claims, or that Bill is a liar and degenerate (how many millions of dollars did his attacks on women that did not want to go to bed with him cost FOX?) and that he cannot be trusted, those are not ad hominem fallacies.

So wrong as usual, but a very good try. You are learning.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You just don't understand our thinking. The fact that you just claimed we worship Trump shows how disconnected you truly are from how I and others think.

Oh, we can see what you are saying.
Your way of thinking contributes to the extreme hatred and divisiveness that is currently plaguing the USA.
I'm not sure why you are so proud of yourselves. It's pretty gross, actually.

 

[Jollybear]

As usual I understand what an ad hominem is far better than you do. You went for a shallow answerable than a deeper understanding. This source is better:

ad hominem fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

"The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody's claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted. Calling into question the reliability of a witness is relevant when the issue is whether to trust the witness. It is irrelevant, however, to call into question the reliability or morality or anything else about a person when the issue is whether that person's reasons for making a claim are good enough reasons to support the claim."

I did not just call Bill an idiot. I also explained why that meant he could not be trusted. You conflated an ad hominem attack, which may or may not be justified, with an ad hominem fallacy.

Think of it this way, an ad hominem fallacy includes an attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If I said that Bill is ugly, a true statement but still an ad hominem attack, therefore we should not believe him that would be an ad hominem fallacy, since looks have nothing to do with honesty. When I say that Bill is an idiot, a provable claim ( "tide goes in tide goes out") and he does not have a valid reason for his claims, or that Bill is a liar and degenerate (how many millions of dollars did his attacks on women that did not want to go to bed with him cost FOX?) and that he cannot be trusted, those are not ad hominem fallacies.

So wrong as usual, but a very good try. You are learning.

As usual, your still doing mental gymnastics and doing a nose dive into denial.

Even with the definition you gave me on ad hominum, you are not even living up to that.

Bill made a astablished solid point about trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president. You dismissed this point by saying because bill has had sexual allegations against him and because he got fired from fox news, therefore what bill says about trumps view of biden BEFORE biden ran for president isnt trustworthy, despite the fact bill astablished this point solidly.

Hate to break it to ya pale, but ad hominums dont just refere to attacking someone for being "ugly" they also refere to someones charector or past.

You DONT know the dynamics of an ad hominum.

Hurry up and learn because frankly, its very, very annoying. But, again, as the saying goes, if your enemy hurts himself let him. So why am i trying to stop you? Well, because some of us actually like debating a subject, unlike yourself.

And i got in trouble by the mods for calling you a lunatic, i find that quite interesting due to the fact that YOU REFUSE to actually debate and yet thats alright, but when i tell the TRUTH about what you are, i get in trouble.

Strange priorities on this forum. Are the rules about surface issues only or do they go after the spirit and substance of the person/s?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as Hillary and Fusion GPS did against Trump?
Am I correct?
Did you see what Obama, Biden, his son, Hillary, did with over 4 billion rand to the Ukraine did?
Do you know they worked with the most corrupt bankers to make the money dissappear?
Burisma holdings eventually are the ones who got the money.
Guess who is working for them

Tu Quoque fallacy. I doubt if you can support your claims, but if Hillary did this she still did an illegal act, but nowhere near as illegal as Trump's. Can you figure out why?

 

[Audie]

I was very clear on how O'Reilly lost all credibility, and you call me a lunatic.

You really need to learn how to find reliable sources. When you rely on loons, liars, and losers you only make your case look weak.

Do you find hufpo to be the place for unbiased truth?

And

do you think it is at least possible that some tinge of
impropriety was involved in the sweetheart deals
that the son-of-biden the VP got from China and
Ukraine?

What do you think of ukraine's role in the 2016 election
or the DNC with their "dossier" compiled from russian
sources?

 

[SkepticThinker]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/30/fbi-texts-evidence-treason-coup/?outputType=amp

An Anti-Trump Resistance Movement Is Growing Within the U.S. Government

...Don't forget Comey and McCabe.

You mean the same Comey that announced just prior to the 2016 election that Hillary Clinton was under investigation, while failing to mention that Trump was also under investigation at the same time?
That guy?

 

[Jollybear]

Huh? You said trump didn’t trust the former president, but yet he gave him 200 million in military aid.

Giving aid with conditions, plus acknowledging the former administration was corrupt, does not mean full trust. It means working with the world allies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual, your still doing mental gymnastics and doing a nose dive into denial.

No, I knew what I was doing before I posted that. Like I said, I understand that concept far better than you do and supported my claim.

You made the mistake of conflating a legitimate attack against O'Reilly with a logical fallacy. I explained quite well why it was not one. It is sad to see that even with an explanation that you are the one in denial.

Even with the definition you gave me on ad hominum, you are not even living up to that.

Bill made a astablished solid point about trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president. You dismissed this point by saying because bill has had sexual allegations against him and because he got fired from fox news, therefore what bill says about trumps view of biden BEFORE biden ran for president isnt trustworthy, despite the fact bill astablished this point solidly.

No, he did not. That was his claim only. He established no such thing. If you think that he did please quote him to show how he did that. And as pointed out it does not matter what tRump believes. He could believe that Biden was a reptoid, as I claimed earlier. If he wanted to investigate him he needed to do so legally. What he did was not legal. There are clear laws against it that have been brought up many times in this thread. I cited and linked one specific one. Trump was even warned by the present overseer of election laws that works in his administration that he was breaking the law again when he asked China to investigate. I could find a link if really needed.

Hate to break it to ya pale, but ad hominums dont just refere to attacking someone for being "ugly" they also refere to someones charector or past.

Wow! You totally missed the point. You still do not understand the difference between an ad hominem attack (which may be justified) and an ad hominem fallacy (which is never justified). I said that my statement could be said to be an ad hominem attack, but it was a justifiable one since it was accurate.

You DONT know the dynamics of an ad hominum.

Hurry up and learn because frankly, its very, very annoying. But, again, as the saying goes, if your enemy hurts himself let him. So why am i trying to stop you? Well, because some of us actually like debating a subject, unlike yourself.

And i got in trouble by the mods for calling you a lunatic, i find that quite interesting due to the fact that YOU REFUSE to actually debate and yet thats alright, but when i tell the TRUTH about what you are, i get in trouble.

Strange priorities on this forum. Are the rules about surface issues only or do they go after the spirit and substance of the person/s?

More ranting and ignorance. You name called. That is not allowed. I could have done the same with far more justification. I have tried to debate the points. You made the mistake of trying to use a completely bogus source and it was properly met with massive disdain. That should have made you think about your error, instead you doubled down on it.

So one more time, if you want to be taken seriously find reliable sources. The fact that you can't should tell you something (it tells you that you are terribly wrong, just in case you were curious).

 

[Jollybear]

No, I knew what I was doing before I posted that. Like I said, I understand that concept far better than you do and supported my claim.

You made the mistake of conflating a legitimate attack against O'Reilly with a logical fallacy. I explained quite well why it was not one. It is sad to see that even with an explanation that you are the one in denial.



No, he did not. That was his claim only. He established no such thing. If you think that he did please quote him to show how he did that. And as pointed out it does not matter what tRump believes. He could believe that Biden was a reptoid, as I claimed earlier. If he wanted to investigate him he needed to do so legally. What he did was not legal. There are clear laws against it that have been brought up many times in this thread. I cited and linked one specific one. Trump was even warned by the present overseer of election laws that works in his administration that he was breaking the law again when he asked China to investigate. I could find a link if really needed.



Wow! You totally missed the point. You still do not understand the difference between an ad hominem attack (which may be justified) and an ad hominem fallacy (which is never justified). I said that my statement could be said to be an ad hominem attack, but it was a justifiable one since it was accurate.



More ranting and ignorance. You name called. That is not allowed. I could have done the same with far more justification. I have tried to debate the points. You made the mistake of trying to use a completely bogus source and it was properly met with massive disdain. That should have made you think about your error, instead you doubled down on it.

So one more time, if you want to be taken seriously find reliable sources. The fact that you can't should tell you something (it tells you that you are terribly wrong, just in case you were curious).

Ok, lets assume your "ad hominum attack" on bill is true. Ok, fine, and i dont care, so, fine.

Now, you did commit an ad hominum fallacy! Yes you DID!

You attacked his charector without addressing the point he made.

And i gave the video, he astablished the point trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president. He interviewed trump and documented it in his book, which was done BEFORE biden ran for president.

You have committed an ad hominum fallacy and you are proud of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Giving aid with conditions, plus acknowledging the former administration was corrupt, does not mean full trust. It means working with the world allies.

The problem is that it is very clear that he withheld the aid for political reasons regarding his reelection. That makes it an illegal act.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, lets assume your "ad hominum attack" on bill is true. Ok, fine, and i dont care, so, fine.

Now, you did commit an ad hominum fallacy! Yes you DID!

You attacked his charector without addressing the point he made.

And i gave the video, he astablished the point trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president. He interviewed trump and documented it in his book, which was done BEFORE biden ran for president.

You have committed an ad hominum fallacy and you are proud of it.

No, I didn't. You forgot a clear part of what an ad hominem fallacy is. It must have nothing to do with the reason for rejecting a source. Bill's honesty has been shown to be impaired. That makes him a worthless source. I pointed out again and again that his claims were of no use to you. I told you to find a valid source. There is a very very small chance that O'Reilly could be right, but that would be a fluke.

Here is a simple analogy. We are having an argument about what time it is. You point to a clock that almost everyone knows is broken as an attempt to support your claims. You are scolded severely because you pointed to a broken clock. Could the clock actually be right? Yes, there is a very small chance of that. But does it reliably support your argument? Not in the least.

Once again find reliable sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you find hufpo to be the place for unbiased truth?

And

do you think it is at least possible that some tinge of
impropriety was involved in the sweetheart deals
that the son-of-biden the VP got from China and
Ukraine?

And tinge of same in the "fire the guy (who is investigating
my kid) in 6 hours or no money for you?"

I rarely rely on Huff Po since they are agenda driven.

And yes, there is a possibility that Biden's son got some undue favoritism. I do agree that it would have been wiser for his father's sake not to get involved in such. The problem is that Trump, even if he believed that Biden was corrupt, tried to investigate him illegally. He cannot withhold aid and demand a quid pro quo form another government to investigate. That broke our laws. There is a legal way to go about such an investigation and he did not do so.