• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the US, there's been about 7.5 births per minute for the last two decades, and probably about 6.5 births per minute for a few decades before that. Not even taking into account that suckers are more likely to die early than non-suckers, that means that no more than 16% of the adult population are suckers. Trump is clearly getting support from a lot more people than just the suckers.

...what?
 
False. He explicitly claimed that the Fed is not independent, as it's supposed to be in theory. Whether or not you agree, it's a legitimate belief.

It's only legitimate if he has any evidence for it, he come up with any?
 
It's only legitimate if he has any evidence for it, he come up with any?

Depends on when you ask the idiotic conspiracy monger.

In May, Donald Trump thought the Federal Reserve handled interest rates exactly right.

"Right now I am for low interest rates, and I think we keep them low," he told CNBC.

Today, he said Fed chair Janet Yellen's interest rate decisions proved she was "obviously not independent" from the White House and was, in fact, a partisan conspirator out to help Democrats.

...

What changed between May and today? Nothing. The Fed has the same policy of low interest rates that Trump gushed over just four months ago. They last voted to raise rates in December 2015, the first time in nearly a decade, although there's speculation among analysts that they could raise them this month.
 
Last edited:
False. He explicitly claimed that the Fed is not independent, as it's supposed to be in theory. Whether or not you agree, it's a legitimate belief.
What is an illegitimate belief?

I'm not suggesting it is one, I'm just wondering what distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate beliefs in your language.
 
What is an illegitimate belief?

I'm not suggesting it is one, I'm just wondering what distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate beliefs in your language.

It hardly requires implausible assumptions to believe that the President can exert some influence with the Federal Reserve Chairman, or the other Governors of the Board. For starters, the President appoints all of them. And the Governors have 14 year appointments, which are staggered so the President appoints or reappoints one every two years. Second, the Chairman herself (as well as the Vice-Chairman, actually) is appointed or reappointed every four years by the President (albeit with Senate confirmation).
 
It hardly requires implausible assumptions to believe that the President can exert some influence with the Federal Reserve Chairman, or the other Governors of the Board. For starters, the President appoints all of them. And the Governors have 14 year appointments, which are staggered so the President appoints or reappoints one every two years. Second, the Chairman herself (as well as the Vice-Chairman, actually) is appointed or reappointed every four years by the President (albeit with Senate confirmation).
And I'm happy for you, but it doesn't answer my question. What distinguishes a legitimate from an illegitimate belief?

Perhaps you're struggling for the word "justifiable", but I'm just guessing.
 
And I'm happy for you, but it doesn't answer my question. What distinguishes a legitimate from an illegitimate belief?

Whether I think it's plausible. Meaning, perhaps, at least a 1% probability of being true, in my view.

Perhaps you're struggling for the word "justifiable", but I'm just guessing.

Huh?
 
It was another insane interview.
Does he do any other type?

If the US Navy people I've met are anything to go by, rude gestures were made towards the Iranians.

As for the debate, I've realised we have the perfect format over here : BBC Radio's Just A Minute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_a_Minute
Whoever's talking at the end of the minute wins the point and we move on to the next subject.

Since it involves talking for a minute on a subject "without hesitation, repetition or deviation" it should suit the straight-talking Trump very well.
 
"Said he would turn Air Force One around and fly home if top officials from a foreign country weren't at the airport to meet him."

Good. Then he can run out of fuel over the Atlantic.

IIRC, Air Force One can be refueled in flight. Sorry to burst that bubble.
 
Whether I think it's plausible. Meaning, perhaps, at least a 1% probability of being true, in my view.
Thank you. Now I know a little more about your language.

Does it have other tenses than "self-referential"?

In English, "legitimate" is not correct in the context. "Justifiable" would be.

Of course it's a mystery whether the lying orange moron thinks it's justifiable or true: he thought it convenient to say in the moment and so he did.
 
Whether I think it's plausible. Meaning, perhaps, at least a 1% probability of being true, in my view.



Huh?

Do you normally accept things as plausible based on assumptions without evidence? It seems we should just say there is no evidence one way or the other.
 
I don't think Trump can grasp that institutions can be fiercely independent, and that people can have integrity.

The history of the Fed system is fascinating, as I'm sure you know. The idea that it is casually corruptible by any and all Presidents is risible. President Trump would get his arse handed to him if he tried it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom