The Private World Of Donald Trump, And Reality

[Skipper]

Nope. Facts have no bias. Evidence and facts are demonstrable and not up for discussion.

Facts and the truth are nasty things as they force us if we are honest, to change our minds and opinions. That is hard for most and impossible for some.

 

[Phantasman]

But it's OK because everyone does it?

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right"- George Leroy Tirebiter, Tirebiter Political Campaign, Sector R (Firesign Theater)

 

[tytlyf]

I don't think so. No penalty, no accountability. Why not?

Trump golfs more than Obama. Fact
Trump lies more than Obama. Fact

Alternative facts =/= facts

 

[Shaul]

Nope. Facts have no bias. Evidence and facts are demonstrable and not up for discussion.

I bet you think Climate change is a hoax. The overwhelming facts and evidence show a single conclusion. You're going to tell me that these facts/evidence are up for debate? What reasoning would be behind someone who goes against the overwhelming global evidence?

I'm not interested in alternative facts. I know Tea Party supporters are.

See? As I wrote you a conflating facts and interpretations. I never wrote the facts had bias. If you think that “overwhelming” facts (whatever that is supposed to mean) allow for only a single conclusion then that just provides evidence you don’t know what you are talking about, and also you are probably not married.

“Alternative facts”, LOL. Nice liberal bogey man.

And what have Tea Party supporters got to do with me? Nothing.

And what about climate change? Yet another attempt to change the subject, which is quite a pattern with you. Misdirection, obfuscation, it is all so boring.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

See? As I wrote you a conflating facts and interpretations. I never wrote the facts had bias. If you think that “overwhelming” facts (whatever that is supposed to mean) allow for only a single conclusion then that just provides evidence you don’t know what you are talking about, and also you are probably not married.

“Alternative facts”, LOL. Nice liberal bogey man.

And what have Tea Party supporters got to do with me? Nothing.

And what about climate change? Yet another attempt to change the subject, which is quite a pattern with you. Misdirection, obfuscation, it is all so boring.

Alternative facts is a liberal bogeyman? How delightfully revisionist. Anyway, care to address any of the statements in the OP?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Trump golfs more than Obama. Fact
Trump lies more than Obama. Fact

Alternative facts =/= facts

But at least Trump wasn't playing golf at a mosque on 9/11 like Obama probably was, amiright?

 

[Shaul]

Trump golfs more than Obama. Fact
Trump lies more than Obama. Fact

Alternative facts =/= facts

Yes, Trump golfs more than Obama is a fact.
No, “Trump lies more than Obama.” is not a fact. That is an opinion.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, Trump golfs more than Obama is a fact.
No, “Trump lies more than Obama.” is not a fact. That is an opinion.

If we count all the objective and unambiguous lies of Trump, and all the objective and unambiguous lies of Obama, which number is larger?

 

[Shaul]

Alternative facts is a liberal bogeyman? How delightfully revisionist. Anyway, care to address any of the statements in the OP?

Yep, an Liberal bogey man. Undefined code word without a universally agreed upon definition.

You want one of the OP claims? Let’s try this one,
“Donald Trump July 9th, 2018
"I have watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13." NO EVIDENCE”
No evidence? I guess the OP is omniscient. It is patently unknowable for the poster, or you, to know there is absolutely no evidence that President Trump has not watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13. Feel free to prove his unprovable negative,

 

[Shaul]

If we count all the objective and unambiguous lies of Trump, and all the objective and unambiguous lies of Obama, which number is larger?

Objective and unambiguous? Hilarious! You should take your show on the road.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Objective and unambiguous? Hilarious! You should take your show on the road.

You should give straight answers to straight questions.

 

[Skwim]

Yep, an Liberal bogey man. Undefined code word without a universally agreed upon definition.

You want one of the OP claims? Let’s try this one,
“Donald Trump July 9th, 2018
"I have watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13." NO EVIDENCE”
No evidence? I guess the OP is omniscient. It is patently unknowable for the poster, or you, to know there is absolutely no evidence that President Trump has not watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13. Feel free to prove his unprovable negative,

If Trump said "I have watched North Korea drop atomic bombs on Japan." And I said "There's been no such evidence (not only of you watching such a thing, but that it ever took place.)" Then it's up to Trump and Company to provide evidence that North Korea dropped atomic bombs on Japan that he could have watched.

Likewise, if no town has ever been liberated from the grasp of MS-13, then there could be no knowledge of it. Trump would have lied about knowing an unknowable. So, to prove himself not a lier he will have to provide evidence that such a liberation ever happened. So . . . . . . . . .has he? IS THERE EVIDENCE that ICE liberated towns from the grasp of MS-13, and a liberation he could have watched? To our knowledge there is none.

.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yep, an Liberal bogey man. Undefined code word without a universally agreed upon definition.

um, where'd the phrase originate?

You want one of the OP claims? Let’s try this one,
“Donald Trump July 9th, 2018
"I have watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13." NO EVIDENCE”
No evidence? I guess the OP is omniscient. It is patently unknowable for the poster, or you, to know there is absolutely no evidence that President Trump has not watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13. Feel free to prove his unprovable negative,

Ah, the old "well you can't prove it DIDN'T happen!" argument. Now, while it is true from a philosophical standpoint that it is impossible to PROVE a negative, from a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to consider certain claims proven false for all practical purposes. Claims without any supporting evidence, that kne could reasonably expect there to be supporting evidence for, if true.

For example; you can't PROVE I wasn't an Apollo astronaut who walked on the Moon, but given the complete absence of evidence, and the fact that it would be reasonable to expect evidence if I were, it's safe enough for all practical purposes to consider the claim "Armoured walked on the Moon as an Apollo astronaut" disproven. See also; the dragon in the garage thought experiment.

Speaking of obfuscation *eyeroll*

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If Trump said "I have watched North Korea drop atomic bombs on Japan." And I said "There's been no such evidence (not only of you watching such a thing, but that it ever took place.)" Then it's up to Trump and Company to provide evidence that North Korea dropped atomic bombs on Japan that he could have watched.

Likewise if no town has ever been liberated from the grasp of MS-13, then there could be no knowledge of it. Trump would have lied about knowing an unknowable. So, to prove himself not a lier he would have to provide evidence that such a liberation ever happened. So . . . . . . . . .has he? IS THERE EVIDENCE that ICE liberated towns from the grasp of MS-13, and a liberation he could have watched?

.

Is our mistake assuming any interest in an intellectuallyhonest discussion?

 

[Skwim]

Is our mistake assuming any interest in an intellectuallyhonest discussion?

Either that or an inability.

.

 

[Shaul]

um, where'd the phrase originate?Ah, the old "well you can't prove it DIDN'T happen!" argument. Now, while it is true from a philosophical standpoint that it is impossible to PROVE a negative, from a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to consider certain claims proven false for all practical purposes. Claims without any supporting evidence, that kne could reasonably expect there to be supporting evidence for, if true.

For example; you can't PROVE I wasn't an Apollo astronaut who walked on the Moon, but given the complete absence of evidence, and the fact that it would be reasonable to expect evidence if I were, it's safe enough for all practical purposes to consider the claim "Armoured walked on the Moon as an Apollo astronaut" disproven. See also; the dragon in the garage thought experiment.

Speaking of obfuscation *eyeroll*

Where did the phrase originate? Who knows? Here’s one example of the term being used from 1913,
https://books.google.com/books?id=p...hWMAk#v=onepage&q="alternative facts"&f=false

As for the rest of your post, just the usual soft shoe because you got nothing. Here are some facts for you. President Trump has access to sources of evidence about ICE that you don’t. One of the duties of the President is to have executive oversight of ICE. In other words, one the President’s Jobs is to watch ICE’s operations which would include when the it liberates a town from MS13. Also you are choosing your own literal interpretation of “liberate” to suit your own purposes.
So, disprove that President Trump has never seen a town liberated from MS 13. Prove the negative.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And yet the world has great disdain for him, we do nothing. Will he take over the world because he bored us into a coma?

And therein lies a very real dilemma...if the US is to be, as it claims (and as is desirable) a "nation of laws," then he can only be removed by law. The Framers made this difficult, and I think for very good reason...anyone in a position of leadership and power is going to attract dissent...this is unavoidable. Yet, a stable society depends on not changing government too easily.

Yet, there are ways, and I sincerely think that we shall see some of those come into play in the near future...and the most likely way will be the most obvious AND LEGAL; elections.

 

[Ellen Brown]

And therein lies a very real dilemma...if the US is to be, as it claims (and as is desirable) a "nation of laws," then he can only be removed by law. The Framers made this difficult, and I think for very good reason...anyone in a position of leadership and power is going to attract dissent...this is unavoidable. Yet, a stable society depends on not changing government too easily.

Yet, there are ways, and I sincerely think that we shall see some of those come into play in the near future...and the most likely way will be the most obvious AND LEGAL; elections.

Trump is a sly gangster. He will be difficult to get out because many of the rich and the politicians are in his pocket. I too hope for a legal, orderly political process, but the data age, cell phones, internet, and news agencies will make that difficult. It almost feels like SkyNet exists now.

 

[Skwim]

Trump is a sly gangster. He will be difficult to get out because many of the rich and the politicians are in his pocket. I too hope for a legal, orderly political process, but the data age, cell phones, internet, and news agencies will make that difficult. It almost feels like SkyNet exists now.

I can't think of anything lovelier than seeing Trump left twisting in the wind.

.

 

[Shaul]

I can't think of anything lovelier than seeing Trump left twisting in the wind.
.

Really? Cause I can think of many, many things lovelier like the innocent smiles of children, flowers, or puppies at play, just to name a few. If you think another person suffering is the loveliest thing it must really suck to be you.