President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
I like Argumemnon. We've had some good arguments. We both are tenacious, we both will argue until we're blue in the face. Sometimes we speak different languages, but there doesn't seem to be any actual animosity there.

Beyond that, personal attacks don't get you very far... and personal attacks against a person that I'm interacting with don't aid my perspective in any fashion.
Click to expand...

Maybe you might remind him and most of the leftists on here the same thing? That is if you're going to be honest and consistent. ;)

I did see that you criticized the usual ones on here for calling the Reagan dems "stupid" for voting for Trump. At least I think that was you.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Did they ever do any of that for the orders under Bush? The treatment of prisoners fell way below that and as long as troublesome pictures didn't get out it was all good. I have not heard of any orders ever being refused.

The trick is to move the scale slowly.
Click to expand...

...and for the really egregious stuff you pick the loyal ideologues. There's a reason why the regular wehrmacht didn't operate the death camps.
 
Argumemnon said:
Again, this wasn't the question. You took the time, presumably, to read my whole post, picked the most important bit of it, quoted it, and responded with something entirely irrelevant and that I already know you believe, having already addressed it multiple times.

So let me narrow it down so you can't wiggle out of it: assuming a Trump dictatorship with full army support, do you really believe that armed citizens would have a non-negligible net positive effect in the fight for freedom in America?
Click to expand...

Suggested word inserted above. I think that there would arguably be some positive effect just in terms of standing up to a tyrant, regardless of outcome. But if we are being careful, then we mean that the effect is important and positive in terms of the future governance of the nation.

Pedantic, I know, but you're already travelling down the path of pedantry in this post.
 
Argumemnon said:
Again, this wasn't the question. You took the time, presumably, to read my whole post, picked the most important bit of it, quoted it, and responded with something entirely irrelevant and that I already know you believe, having already addressed it multiple times.

So let me narrow it down so you can't wiggle out of it: assuming a Trump dictatorship with full army support, do you really believe that armed citizens would have a net positive effect in the fight for freedom in America?
Click to expand...

When will you stop beating your wife?

Are you requiring me to accept your hypothetical, even though it is based on a flawed assumption that makes the entire hypothetical pointless? :eye-poppi
 
phiwum said:
Suggested word inserted above. I think that there would arguably be some positive effect just in terms of standing up to a tyrant, regardless of outcome. But if we are being careful, then we mean that the effect is important and positive in terms of the future governance of the nation.

Pedantic, I know, but you're already travelling down the path of pedantry in this post.
Click to expand...

No, no. It's a good point.

And I wasn't trying to be pedantic. But my original question was met with all kinds of provisions that weren't part of the original scenario, so I have to make it more narrow. Kind of like you say "If you chop off your hand, would you be able to use it afterward?" and the person answered "Sure, once they sow it back!"
 
Argumemnon said:
No, no. It's a good point.

And I wasn't trying to be pedantic. But my original question was met with all kinds of provisions that weren't part of the original scenario, so I have to make it more narrow. Kind of like you say "If you chop off your hand, would you be able to use it afterward?" and the person answered "Sure, once they sow it back!"
Click to expand...

Your original question didn't actually include the "assuming full military support" bit ;)
 
Emily's Cat said:
When will you stop beating your wife?
Click to expand...

That's a strange place to insert this. In what way is my question like this? If you answer "yes", then I'll simply say I disagree with you because I don't think the type of arms or training that the population has can stand to a modern army. If you say "no", then we agree. How can this question be seen as the same kind of trap as the classic one you typed?

Are you requiring me to accept your hypothetical, even though it is based on a flawed assumption that makes the entire hypothetical pointless?
Click to expand...

Again, I've not made any sort of flawed assumption. I've explained it to you again a few minutes ago. I am making a narrow point about the efficacy of armed civilian resistance. Of course if the army refuses the obey illegal or immortal orders the entire point is moot.

Your original question didn't actually include the "assuming full military support" bit
Click to expand...

I thought it was evident, since if it did, civilian participation is largely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Hitler didn't have to disarm 5he country or use the military to enforce his rule.
People went along with it and goted for him. He encouragedgun ownership and marksmanship, it was patriotic and prepared people for military service.
Any dictator in the US won't face a mass armed rising, whoever it is will be cheered by the masses and praised.
That's how it always starts.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I see. The hypothetical actions of people who are not me, in states in which I don't live, who you believe *might* have made a difference to the results in those states (in which I don't live)... is a perfectly acceptable reason for you to heap scorn on me personally?

Does this actually make sense to you?
Click to expand...

Exactly why vote at all, for most people voting doesn't matter.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Exactly why vote at all, for most people voting doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

To be fair, voting red in California doesn't matter much.

Perhaps proportional attributions of electoral votes per state rather than winner-take-all policies would work better to encourage people to vote in their state, everything else being equal.
 
Minoosh said:
They were going to Mexico anyway. Not connected to Trump. Ford claims no jobs will be lost in Michigan. This is the more important fact from that link:



That was reported 5 days ago, so it's not breaking either, but it's not very helpful to blame chasing out Mexicans for Ford's move to Mexico. Looking at money flowing from auto companies to D.C. to try to influence opinion might be a more fruitful avenue. Might. Would it pan out? Don't know. Financing that sort of reporting is crucial. Bloomberg, maybe.

Yeah but when you factor in all the ex-KGB who voted for Trump it evens out.

ETA: So Hillary still wins!
Click to expand...

There is a dynamic at play involving fuel economy where the automakers and national policies have been chasing our tails. Ford wants to build all of its compact and subcompact cars in Mexico where the labor is cheaper and unlike foreign auto makers they don't have to pay a tariff because of NAFTA.

Here's the thing, the auto makers want lower cafe standards because there is no way to meet them with people buying gas guzzling trucks. But the problem is what will happen to jobs in the US when that changes. Gas is 2.50 a gallon right now what happens to jobs when the market shifts dramatically towards high efficiency compact vehicles? Part of the reason gas prices are lower is that demand dropped when gas was 4.00 a gallon and at that time people shifted towards the smaller vehicles.

Ford is lying that jobs won't be lost in Michigan. They will. Not today or this year, but their will be job losse, because gas prices aren't permanently low.
 
Emily's Cat said:
When will you stop beating your wife?

Are you requiring me to accept your hypothetical, even though it is based on a flawed assumption that makes the entire hypothetical pointless? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Are you unfamiliar with conditional reasoning?

If you find the hypothesis unlikely, here's what you do. You say, "This seems unlikely, but if it were to happen, then .... "

Hypothetical reasoning and the fallacy of complex question are not at all similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom