Poor Little Dem's Mad: Taking Their Ball and Going Home

[shmogie]

Liar.

LOL !!!

 

[ecco]

No more, they are all blatant liars, and all to a greater or lesser extent want to put in place "socialist", communist, principles to the detriment of America.

The utter hypocrisy of a Trump Adorer saying other people are liars.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I dare you to watch all three hours of it!

You dodged my challenge. Tell you what, how about a compromise: if I fail to find a lie or extremely misleading statement in the first ten minutes, then I’ll watch the full 3 hours.

But if I succeed, you have to read the volume of the Mueller report about Trump.

Deal?

 

[Shadow Link]

But if I succeed, you have to read the volume of the Mueller report about Trump.

Deal?

I've tried reading the Mueller report. It's chopped so badly with the timeline of events, various works from 20 + lawyers, a real waste of time. Nothing substantial. Not to mention it's already a failed attempt to cover for the Ukraine mess from the previous administration.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Voting for a declared and known communist is better than voting for a stealth sub rosa communist.

There was a time when I would evaluate democrats based upon what they said, and their history. I even voted for one or two.

No more, they are all blatant liars, and all to a greater or lesser extent want to put in place "socialist", communist, principles to the detriment of America.

poor ignorant shmogie doesn't know the difference between a social democrat and a communist... how sad and pathetic.

 

[shmogie]

poor ignorant shmogie doesn't know the difference between a social democrat and a communist... how sad and pathetic.

LOL !, a social democrat. Tell me, what do social democrats stand for, since I am ignorant of them ? What are their policies and what do they want to accomplish ? Please, lay it out for me, educate me.

Then we will compare the social democrat with the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Are you up for it ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL !! " Treason, bribery, or OTHER high crimes or misdemeanors" Treason, a statutory crime, bribery, a statutory crime, or OTHER statutory crimes.

So, gizmo, show me the crimes. The democrats didn't.

You are trying to play semantic games. It is an error to assume that languages do not change over time so relying on a modern dictionary for a 230 year old phrase is a losing strategy. The words in context do not mean what you think that they mean. Wikipedia can be a very good starting point:


High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

 

[QuestioningMind]

LOL !, a social democrat. Tell me, what do social democrats stand for, since I am ignorant of them ? What are their policies and what do they want to accomplish ? Please, lay it out for me, educate me.

Then we will compare the social democrat with the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Are you up for it ?

You can't cure yourself of your self-imposed ignorance? How typically sad and pathetic of you. I'll give you a hint tough: A communist and a social democrat and two COMPLETELY different things.

 

[shmogie]

You can't cure yourself of your self-imposed ignorance? How typically sad and pathetic of you. I'll give you a hint tough: A communist and a social democrat and two COMPLETELY different things.

You think so ? One is communist lite.

Obviously you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, the fathers of socialism and communism. You are afraid to discuss what you don't know.

Hitler was a socialist. Stalin declared himself a social democrat who won every election in which he ran. Mao was a socialist.

You are struggling attempting to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

A social democrat is one who wants the people to select the leaders who will oppress them, control the means of major production, escalate taxation to promote bureaucrat generated programs, and cripple the free market whenever possible.

All one has to do is listen to Sanders, or Ocasio-Cortez to see exactly what a social democrat is.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've tried reading the Mueller report. It's chopped so badly with the timeline of events, various works from 20 + lawyers, a real waste of time. Nothing substantial. Not to mention it's already a failed attempt to cover for the Ukraine mess from the previous administration.

I thought it was a quite damning portrayal of Trump's feckless attempts to obstruct justice, but, propose something else if you prefer. It sounds like you do not want to wager that I can find a lie or something grossly misleading in the first 10 minutes of the video ... gee, I wonder why ...

 

[Revoltingest]

I ... gee, I wonder why ...

I'll jump in with an answer.
I've noticed that with Trump, his foes are too quick to call
any disagreement a "lie". Often, it could alternatively be....
- A matter of language inference
- Difference of opinion
- Mistake of fact
- Puffery

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'll jump in with an answer.
I've noticed that with Trump, his foes are too quick to call
any disagreement a "lie". Often, it could alternatively be....
- A matter of language inference
- Difference of opinion
- Mistake of fact
- Puffery

I notice that this has nothing to do with the specific video in question, which you side-stepped and chose not to defend - quite understandably. Tangentially, it does not make sense why what you've stated above, if true, would make someone less likely to accept my wager. And, I did say "lie or extremely misleading statement", I did not say it had to be a lie.

But as long as we are making general statements about swaths of people, that cannot be proved or refuted, and avoid actually having to defend specific Trumpworld lies or misleading statements in the video that was posted: I've noticed that Trump's supporters are too quick to invent elaborate excuses for known liars, in search of any possible explanation other than the simplest one, which is that they are lying again.

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice that this has nothing to do with the specific video in question, which you side-stepped and chose not to defend - quite understandably.

It was intentional.
Avoiding long posts to respond too cuz of me cold.
Wanna see what I'm hoarking up today?

Spoiler: It's a big'n

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'll jump in with an answer.
I've noticed that with Trump, his foes are too quick to call
any disagreement a "lie". Often, it could alternatively be....
- A matter of language inference
- Difference of opinion
- Mistake of fact
- Puffery

As I noted above this is kind of a tangent to what we were discussing, but I have to ask. Just out of pure curiosity.

Trump has made well over 15,000 documented false or misleading claims while in office. Can you name one instance when Trump did what you are referring to above, that was NOT in his favor?

By analogy: sometimes I have a false memory about whether or not I took the trash out. That's a mistake of fact. Half the time, I go to take out the trash and - pleasant surprise! - I was wrong, I had actually already taken it out earlier! Chalk it up to forgetfulness on my part.

But if 100% of the time, I "accidentally" thought - nay, swore on my ancestors! - I had already taken the trash out, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar! ... when in fact I hadn't ... then my wife might get understandably suspicious. That's not a mistake of fact - that's a pattern. Whether it's intentional or not, the result is the same: there's trash, and I'm not taking it out.

Same idea here. Whether Trump is a liar, or just childishly incompetent with the truth in his own favor, the result is the same: there is truth, and the President is warping it.

The man lies so often, so unnecessarily, he literally lied about what the weather was like on his own inauguration, to pick a random example ... an event that was attended by countless people and recorded on video. Why on earth would we try harder to come up with alternative explanations for his lies, than he tries to just tell the truth plainly and clearly.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It was intentional.
Avoiding long posts to respond too cuz of me cold.
Wanna see what I'm hoarking up today?

Good lord ... !

 

[Revoltingest]

As I noted above this is kind of a tangent to what we were discussing, but I have to ask. Just out of pure curiosity.

Trump has made well over 15,000 documented false or misleading claims while in office. Can you name one instance when Trump did what you are referring to above, that was NOT in his favor?

By analogy: sometimes I have a false memory about whether or not I took the trash out. That's a mistake of fact. Half the time, I go to take out the trash and - pleasant surprise! - I was wrong, I had actually already taken it out earlier! Chalk it up to forgetfulness on my part.

But if 100% of the time, I "accidentally" thought - nay, swore on my ancestors! - I had already taken the trash out, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar! ... when in fact I hadn't ... then my wife might get understandably suspicious. That's not a mistake of fact - that's a pattern. Whether it's intentional or not, the result is the same: there's trash, and I'm not taking it out.

Same idea here. Whether Trump is a liar, or just childishly incompetent with the truth in his own favor, the result is the same: there is truth, and the President is warping it.

The man lies so often, so unnecessarily, he literally lied about what the weather was like on his own inauguration, to pick a random example ... an event that was attended by countless people and recorded on video. Why on earth would we try harder to come up with alternative explanations for his lies, than he tries to just tell the truth plainly and clearly.

I'll point out that when people call something a "lie" without
justifying it, when other explanations are possible, it speaks
of hatred overwhelming reason. Fewer but well supported
claims would be more compelling.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You think so ? One is communist lite.

Obviously you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, the fathers of socialism and communism. You are afraid to discuss what you don't know.

Hitler was a socialist. Stalin declared himself a social democrat who won every election in which he ran. Mao was a socialist.

You are struggling attempting to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

A social democrat is one who wants the people to select the leaders who will oppress them, control the means of major production, escalate taxation to promote bureaucrat generated programs, and cripple the free market whenever possible.

All one has to do is listen to Sanders, or Ocasio-Cortez to see exactly what a social democrat is.

Thanks so much for demonstrating your self-imposed ignorance for all to see.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'll point out that when people call something a "lie" without
justifying it, when other explanations are possible, it speaks
of hatred overwhelming reason. Fewer but well supported
claims would be more compelling.

I would normally, 100%, absolutely agree with you.

Pick a Republican - GW Bush, McCain, Romney to name the most recent nominees for president - and I will gladly agree they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I will further gladly agree that far too often, those on the Left were too eager to accuse leaders on the Right of "lying" when other explanations were possible. And I would go further, and say that other explanations are more constructive.

Trump is different. Please listen carefully: I honestly, truly do not say that out of hatred. I do not say it with any satisfaction. I say it only because mountains upon mountains of evidence, from Trump's own mouth, force me to say it. He is the boy who cried wolf. He has lied so many times, that has lost the right to the benefit of the doubt. Not even his supporters take anything he says at face value; no thinking person can. Many people in Trump's orbit and across the political spectrum have admitted Trump is uniquely challenged in his relationship with the truth. This includes his former press secretaries Sean Spicer and Scaramucci, his former lawyer Cohen, his former Secretary of State, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, his ghost writer, his biographer, etc. He is well outside the normal range in this regard.

You are absolutely right that it would be uncharitable zealotry to simply assume a politician you disagree with is "lying". But the flip side of that coin is, you aren't being open-minded if you continue to give a proven, serial liar the benefit of the doubt. When that happens, then you are just being a sucker.

So I agree with you except in extraordinary cases ... Trump is an extraordinary case. You would have to be blind not to see that (as well as congested!)

 

[Revoltingest]

I would normally, 100%, absolutely agree with you.

Pick a Republican - GW Bush, McCain, Romney to name the most recent nominees for president - and I will gladly agree they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I will further gladly agree that far too often, those on the Left were too eager to accuse leaders on the Right of "lying" when other explanations were possible. And I would go further, and say that other explanations are more constructive.

Trump is different. Please listen carefully: I honestly, truly do not say that out of hatred. I do not say it with any satisfaction. I say it only because mountains upon mountains of evidence, from Trump's own mouth, force me to say it. He is the boy who cried wolf. He has lied so many times, that has lost the right to the benefit of the doubt. Not even his supporters take anything he says at face value; no thinking person can. Many people in Trump's orbit and across the political spectrum have admitted Trump is uniquely challenged in his relationship with the truth. This includes his former press secretaries Sean Spicer and Scaramucci, his former lawyer Cohen, his former Secretary of State, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, his ghost writer, his biographer, etc. He is well outside the normal range in this regard.

You are absolutely right that it would be uncharitable zealotry to simply assume a politician you disagree with is "lying". But the flip side of that coin is, you aren't being open-minded if you continue to give a proven, serial liar the benefit of the doubt. When that happens, then you are just being a sucker.

So I agree with you except in extraordinary cases ... Trump is an extraordinary case. You would have to be blind not to see that (as well as congested!)

To argue that something is a lie...not based upon
analysis...but rather upon a preponderance of lying
(using the same standard) is fishy. One might say
that judging based upon such prejudice could earn
one the accusation of "sucker".
Luckily, I wouldn't do that.

Btw, the post I quoted above just reeks of personal
disdain, not just for Trump, but for me. You should
work on that for more civility, equanimity, & objectivity.

 

[shmogie]

Thanks so much for demonstrating your self-imposed ignorance for all to see.

LOL, You demonstrated your ignorance of the founders of socialism, your ignorance of those you support, and your ignorance of what you actually believe. You are stunningly ignorant.