Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Shad]

Come on now we all know Donald Trump would not care one whit about Hunter Biden if he wasn’t determined to smear Hunter’s father.

Projection.

The idea Trump cares about corruption of this sort is laughable.

Yet the Dem circus isn't?

Trump explicitly named *Joe* Biden on his call with Zelensky, directly pressing him to look into *Joe* Biden's role in stopping a (fictional) investigation of his son.

Yes as Biden was VP and suddenly his son got a job in a field and nation has zero experience with. You seems not to know the background on the issue. Do some research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes as Biden was VP and suddenly his son got a job in a field and nation has zero experience with. You seems not to know the background on the issue. Do some research.

Just like Trump's kids. Whoops.

The problem is not whether Biden's son got his position legally or not. The problem is the illegal investigation. Nixon may have had some legitimate concerns about McGovern. Guess what? That did not justify an illegal break-in. During elections one has to be very careful to follow the laws. Trump appears to be as guilty as Nixon.

 

[Callisto]

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:

Hee, I watched that. I particularly liked Kate McKinnon's Elizabeth Warren visiting Weekend Update to address the wingnut rumor that she's into BDSM... "Yeah, I'm into Bank Destroyin' n' Savin' Medicare!"

 

[Audie]

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.

Of course hufpo is agenda driven. That is american media
today.

My unamerican pov here is that your govt
is sickeningly corrupt, with hlllary and bill being
egregious in the extreme.

As for whet her what trump did or did not do,
Let a court decide what is legal and what is not.
esp given that trump is hardly a skilled wordsmith
and who knows wtf he means, and that its not for you
or me to say what his reasons were.

IF an agency wanted to get you*, they'd find it
pathetically easy. You probably committed
a dozen felonies in the last week.

Whether your society would benefit from
hitting you, or the T with maximum publicity and
penalties is another matter.

You are taking as biased a pov as any with your
"possible...undue".


Any interest in looking into it?

I am more than likely going to exit your fair country
soon, and it will be of less interest to me how you
guys go about shredding yourselves.


*or me, or the man behind the tree

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course hufpo is agenda driven. That is american media
today.

My unamerican pov here is that your govt
is sickeningly corrupt, with hlllary and bill being
egregious in the extreme.

As for whet her what trump did or did not do,
Let a court decide what is legal and what is not.
esp given that trump is hardly a skilled wordsmith
and who knows wtf he means, and that its not for you
or me to say what his reasons were.

IF an agency wanted to get you*, they'd find it
pathetically easy. You probably committed
a dozen felonies in the last week.

Whether your society would benefit from
hitting you, or the T with maximum publicity and
penalties is another matter.

You are taking as biased a pov as any with your
"possible...undue".


Any interest in looking into it?

I am more than likely going to exit your fair country
soon, and it will be of less interest to me how you
guys go about shredding yourselves.


*or me, or the man behind the tree

The President is not tried in a court of law. He is tried through the impeachment process. And right now I just want a thorough investigation.

 

[Audie]

The President is not tried in a court of law. He is tried through the impeachment process. And right now I just want a thorough investigation.

Come now I know it is not a court of law

You is the swab who said "investigate him illegally."

"just". You give the impression of having taken
a distinct list, but if you are in fact neutral and
only wants to now the facts, great.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come now I know it is not a court of law

"just". You give the impression of having taken
a distinct list, but if you are in fact neutral and
only wants to now the facts, great.

The facts that are already out make it very difficult to be neutral. Impeachment is largely a political action, it is the American public that needs to be convinced by the evidence. The House and Senate will then react based on public opinion.

 

[Audie]

The facts that are already out make it very difficult to be neutral. Impeachment is largely a political action, it is the American public that needs to be convinced by the evidence. The House and Senate will then react based on public opinion.

"By the evidence" which is far from having been presented.

Neutral just means afaic, like, wait and see what the
evidence actually is. You are clearly partisan, as
is nearly everyone else.

Ifn this is all a popularity contest, then wait for a election.

The dems have been saying t is illegitimate, talking
impeach impeach since the day he was elected.

By now, even if there is grounds (as would be the
case with a lot of presidents) the opposition will never
accept it.

 

[Ouroboros]

My unamerican pov here is that your govt
is sickeningly corrupt, with hlllary and bill being
egregious in the extreme.

Agree. There's a lot of corruption going on, and not until we get a president who's honest, reliable, stable, moral, and have an IQ above idiot, we'll might start getting things right. But right now, we're just going from bad to worse each election.

 

[Prometheus85]

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

What? Where did trump acknowledge the former administration was corrupt?

Also those conditions were contingent on Ukraine passing a series of defense reforms to help bring the country's defense practices into line with modern standards and practices.

So your just gonna make stuff up huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"By the evidence" which is far from having been presented.

Neutral just means afaic, like, wait and see what the
evidence actually is. You are clearly partisan, as
is nearly everyone else.

Ifn this is all a popularity contest, then wait for a election.

The dems have been saying t is illegitimate, talking
impeach impeach since the day he was elected.

By now, even if there is grounds (as would be the
case with a lot of presidents) the opposition will never
accept it.

A transcript has been released.

 

[Audie]

Agree. There's a lot of corruption going on, and not until we get a president who's honest, reliable, stable, moral, and have an IQ above idiot, we'll might start getting things right. But right now, we're just going from bad to worse each election.

I dont know that it will just get worse, but, it does seem
that our of 300 plus million people its kind of incredible
who the finalists are.

One thing about the chinese communist party, nobody
gets to the top without being very smart, very tough.

 

[Audie]

A transcript has been released.

News of the excessively well known

 

[Jollybear]

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.

Oh my god!

Yes, you DID commit a add hominum fallacy! Yes you did. No matter how much mental cartweels you do to try to get around it, you did commit it whether you like it or not. Your too weak NOT to commit it as well. So, to live in your own skin, you got to deny it.

The point he made was trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president. Theres no reason this is dishonest because he documented it in his new book that was being made BEFORE biden ran.

It would make zero sense for this to be a lie because its verifiable.

You instead of dealing with this point, dismiss it on the grounds that he got fired from fox.

You have committed an ad homminum fallacy. Yes, you have and that is a FACT.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my god!

Yes, you DID commit a add hominum fallacy! Yes you did. No matter how much mental cartweels you do to try to get around it, you did commit it whether you like it or not. Your too weak NOT to commit it as well. So, to live in your own skin, you got to deny it.

The point he made was trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president. Theres no reason this is dishonest because he documented it in his new book that was being made BEFORE biden ran.

It would make zero sense for this to be a lie because its verifiable.

You instead of dealing with this point, dismiss it on the grounds that he got fired from fox.

You have committed an ad homminum fallacy. Yes, you have and that is a FACT.

No, I clearly did not. I rejected Bill's claims for sound reasons. Once again you do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. The attack must be unrelated to the topic at hand. You tried to use O'Reilly improperly as an authority. The attack was valid. If you had read and understood the deeper definition given the ad hominem needs to be on an unrelated trait.

And no, Trump is incredibly dishonest. You need a valid source to claim that he thought that Biden was corrupt before the election.

Tell me, if Biden was corrupt why did he wait until he was running, and running as a front runner that beat Trump in the polls until now? The time to investigate is when one learns of the corruption. Not when it is politically beneficial to you.

And you still have no excuse for Trump's breaking of campaign finance laws. Please, do not accuse others of your sins.

 

[Jollybear]

No, I clearly did not.

Yes, you clearly did commit ad hominum fallacy. Indeed you did and its a proven fact you did. You can lie to yourself all you want, but i and many others no better.

I rejected Bill's claims for sound reasons.

Rejecting a claim based on charector is not a SOUND reason, its an ADD HOMINUM FALLACY and you know it and i know it.

Once again you do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Oh but i do, i know exactly what it is and i know when its demonstrated because im not stupid. You also know what it is, your just pretending its something else because your a terrible, lazy debater.

The attack must be unrelated to the topic at hand.

Thats what an add hominum fallacy is, an attack unrelated to the topic and thats exactly what you did with bill.

You tried to use O'Reilly improperly as an authority.

No, i did not use him as an authority, i used him because he proved a point.

The attack was valid. If you had read and understood the deeper definition given the ad hominem needs to be on an unrelated trait.

Hey, im just going by your distinction with "add hominum attack" vs "add hominum fallacy" and so yes, you attacked him, fine, who cares. But, you did commit ad hominum fallacy. Accept this, stop doing it and learn.

And no, Trump is incredibly dishonest. You need a valid source to claim that he thought that Biden was corrupt before the election.

Your incredably dishonest because you refuse to accept you committed an ad hominum fallacy.

Tell me, if Biden was corrupt why did he wait until he was running, and running as a front runner that beat Trump in the polls until now? The time to investigate is when one learns of the corruption. Not when it is politically beneficial to you.

My gauss is because the former ukraine administration and the country had alot of corruption. Plus, trump was busy with alot of other issues he was working on. The president does alot of work behind the scenes that we dont see on the TV.

And you still have no excuse for Trump's breaking of campaign finance laws. Please, do not accuse others of your sins.

Actually trump did not break campaign finance laws. He did not pressure or bribe the present ukraine president. He did not get donations to his own campaign from ukraine.

Now, the democrats DID the very thing they are accusing trump of, the hypocrites that they are.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you clearly did commit ad hominum fallacy. Indeed you did and its a proven fact you did. You can lie to yourself all you want, but i and many others no better.

No lying needed. I proved that was not the case. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a logical concept.

Rejecting a claim based on charector is not a SOUND reason, its an ADD HOMINUM FALLACY and you know it and i know it.

it is hard to take your claim that you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is when you can't even spell it. Let me try to explain to you. Bill has shown that he cannot be trusted. Your source would require us to take a dishonest person that has never owned up to his last lies and idiocy. He cannot be taken seriously as a result. He is not a valid source.


There is a reason that newspapers publish their errors. They know that when they make an error, and it is all but impossible not to make one, one must acknowledge those errors when uncovered if they want others to continue to respect and trust them. Bill has not done this he no longer can be trusted.

Vet your sources.

Oh but i do, i know exactly what it is and i know when its demonstrated because im not stupid. You also know what it is, your just pretending its something else because your a terrible, lazy debater.

That is not true. You repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand even when explained to you repeatedly along with a more thorough source. You also never even clearly stated his claims, you only claimed that Bill somehow proved something. That was an appeal to a false authority, another logical fallacy on your part.

Thats what an add hominum fallacy is, an attack unrelated to the topic and thats exactly what you did with bill.

Not really an attack, more of an observation.

No, i did not use him as an authority, i used him because he proved a point.

He did not prove any point and you neglected to quote his supposed point. You did use him as an authority.

Hey, im just going by your distinction with "add hominum attack" vs "add hominum fallacy" and so yes, you attacked him, fine, who cares. But, you did commit ad hominum fallacy. Accept this, stop doing it and learn.

Repeating your errors does not help your case.

Your incredably dishonest because you refuse to accept you committed an ad hominum fallacy.

Please, you should know better by now. You forgot our debating history. Let's not make false claims about honesty.

My gauss is because the former ukraine administration and the country had alot of corruption. Plus, trump was busy with alot of other issues he was working on. The president does alot of work behind the scenes that we dont see on the TV.

I am sorry but that makes no sense at all. And it still does not explain Trump's illegal activities.

Actually trump did not break campaign finance laws. He did not pressure or bribe the present ukraine president. He did not get donations to his own campaign from ukraine.

Now, the democrats DID the very thing they are accusing trump of, the hypocrites that they are.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Please, don't be silky. Of course he broke campaign finance laws. Why do you think that he is calling his pants? And yes, he did pressure the Ukraine by holding up their aid from us. Have you not been following this at all?

 

[Jollybear]

What? Where did trump acknowledge the former administration was corrupt?

Heres a part of the transcript between ukraine president and trump.

"President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp (a.k.a corruption) here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time."

Also those conditions were contingent on Ukraine passing a series of defense reforms to help bring the country's defense practices into line with modern standards and practices.

So your just gonna make stuff up huh?

I didnt make up anything. And i quoted the other part in the article you gave, apparently you ignored it, and im not gonna waste time flipping back to find the article to repaste the section when you should have accepted it when i first pasted it.

 

[Jollybear]

No lying needed. I proved that was not the case. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a logical concept.

You did lie, you are lying and youl continue wasting my time lying.

it is hard to take your claim that you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is when you can't even spell it.

Oh you can understand a concept despite a misspell. And i gave you wikis definition of ad hominem falacy, you did not like it, so you got another which didnt help you.

Let me try to explain to you. Bill has shown that he cannot be trusted. Your source would require us to take a dishonest person that has never owned up to his last lies and idiocy. He cannot be taken seriously as a result. He is not a valid source.

Your repeating the ad hominem.

There is a reason that newspapers publish their errors. They know that when they make an error, and it is all but impossible not to make one, one must acknowledge those errors when uncovered if they want others to continue to respect and trust them. Bill has not done this he no longer can be trusted.

Vet your sources.

More rationalizing away your ad hominem and lies away.

That is not true. You repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand even when explained to you repeatedly along with a more thorough source. You also never even clearly stated his claims, you only claimed that Bill somehow proved something. That was an appeal to a false authority, another logical fallacy on your part.

More lies. I did in fact tell what his claim was, how he astablished it and i gave the video. Its not my problem you dont pay attention. But, then, you just come on here to pass (waste) time.

Not really an attack, more of an observation.

At first you said it was an ad hominem attack, vs ad hominem fallacy. Now your calling it an observation. Look man, i dont care what you call it. The fact remains, your practicing a bad debate method. It is an ad hominem fallacy your doing whether you like it or not.

I am sorry but that makes no sense at all. And it still does not explain Trump's illegal activities.

Why dont it make sense?

Please, don't be silky.

I suppose i cant take your statement about me here seriously since you did not spell silly right, eh?

Of course he broke campaign finance laws. Why do you think that he is calling his pants? And yes, he did pressure the Ukraine by holding up their aid from us. Have you not been following this at all?

Oh i have been following it alright. Why dont you tell us how he broke these laws, break it down instead of just preaching your view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did lie, you are lying and youl continue wasting my time lying.

No, I don't have to lie. You have a faulty understanding of what an ad hominem fallacy is. You failed in not even presenting an argument to start with. You were lazy and your source was rightfully rejected.

Oh you can understand a concept despite a misspell. And i gave you wikis definition of ad hominem falacy, you did not like it, so you got another which didnt help you.

Yes, one can, but it really does not bode well. And, yes you gave wikis definition and I gave a more thorough one. Wiki is a good starting place, but it is not the be all and end all.

Your repeating the ad hominem.

No, I am repeating the facts. You tried to use a bogus authority.

More rationalizing away your ad hominem and lies away.

Once again, I neither lied nor did I use an ad hominem.

More lies. I did in fact tell what his claim was, how he astablished it and i gave the video. Its not my problem you dont pay attention. But, then, you just come on here to pass (waste) time.

No you made a bogus claim without any quotes. You claimed that he showed that he thought that Biden was corrupt. That is only an opinion and does not help your case. You would need quotes to show the evidence that Biden was corrupt, but the last I checked you did not understand the concept of evidence either.

At first you said it was an ad hominem attack, vs ad hominem fallacy. Now your calling it an observation. Look man, i dont care what you call it. The fact remains, your practicing a bad debate method. It is an ad hominem fallacy your doing whether you like it or not.

I do believe that I said you might be able to call it an ad hominem attack, but even that is questionable since what I stated can be defended. Is it an ad hominem if the claims are true?

Why dont it make sense?

Because you could not state your case clearly.

I suppose i cant take your statement about me here seriously since you did not spell silly right, eh?

A typo is excusable. Constantly misspelling the term that you are arguing about not so much.

Try again.

Oh i have been following it alright. Why dont you tell us how he broke these laws, break it down instead of just preaching your view.

Gladly. But first we settle this. No moving of the goal posts. That is deflection and not a proper debating technique.