Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

[BobTheCoward]

Then i will accept that you agree Trump would have been familiar with Papadopoulos and the entire accuracy of the comment becomes moot.

It isn't moot. You don't get a pass on an erroneous argument because I agree with the conclusions from a different vector.

 

[alfaniner]

I'm finding it amusing to hear news anchors continually have to say "Papadopoulos".

I imagine The PDJT will come up with a pet name for him, probably "Snuffleupagus".

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then i will accept that you agree Trump would have been familiar with Papadopoulos and the entire accuracy of the comment becomes moot.

This all depends on how confused and senile you think trump is. If you view him as a fundamentally confused and senile old man who doesn't understand anything going on around him it does kind of fit the evidence.

 

[Worm]

In the UK, Mr Papadopolous is best known as the guy who owns the launderette in Eastenders.

http://eastenders.wikia.com/wiki/Andonis_Papadopolous

 

[TofuFighter]

It isn't moot. You don't get a pass on an erroneous argument because I agree with the conclusions from a different vector.

The argument was never erroneous (Trump knew Pap'os) and the distinction you've made (Trump wasn't president at the time) had no effect on it, as you've agreed (less gravity, but gravity enough), ergo it is moot.

 

[Allen773]

New theory for why Trump ran for President: He needed to pay back his erm, creditors, big league. Hence, Trump wanting so bad to pass his big beautiful tax cut.

Then, after he pays off the Rus...sorry, his creditors with the savings from his tax cut, he'll finally have enough money to be what he's always wanted to be.



An actual billionaire.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The argument was never erroneous (Trump knew Pop'os) and the distinction you've made (Trump wasn't president at the time) had no effect on it, as you've agreed (less gravity, but gravity enough), ergo it is moot.

I still have not agreed that the meeting is a good piece of evidence for indicating the person was known to Trump.

The claim was trump knew him. The argument for it was because they attended a meeting together. I am not on board with the second part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure there is, look how often Trump gets the equivalent of that with his contractors. Its called dine and dash. That is a free lunch and the goal of the reforms of the tax code.

I assume that was a joke but theft is not a free lunch in the meaning of the saying.

 

[phiwum]

I'm finding it amusing to hear news anchors continually have to say "Papadopoulos".

I imagine The PDJT will come up with a pet name for him, probably "Snuffleupagus".

Yeah that's good, but the golden years of Sesame Street are a little late for his frame of reference.

And also too clever for him. Look for too tall George.

 

[TofuFighter]

I still have not agreed that the meeting is a good piece of evidence for indicating the person was known to Trump.

The claim was trump knew him. The argument for it was because they attended a meeting together. I am not on board with the second part.

I would suggest that, although less than the gravity of a meeting with the actual president, the meeting would retain a high enough level of gravity for everyone in that particular meeting to be familiar with the others.
If you don't disagree, then i would ask what your reason was for mentioning it at all.

Because the statement wasn't entirely accurate.

Perhaps you can forgive me for thinking you had already agreed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Perhaps you can forgive me for thinking you had already agreed.

I meant I don't disagree that trump knew him.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I assume that was a joke but theft is not a free lunch in the meaning of the saying.

It is in Trumpanomics. Rule one is never pay your contractors after all, free buildings then.

 

[NoahFence]

I still have not agreed that the meeting is a good piece of evidence for indicating the person was known to Trump.

The claim was trump knew him. The argument for it was because they attended a meeting together. I am not on board with the second part.

He was in that meeting and trump named him specifically.

He was known to trump.


just stop.

 

[TofuFighter]

I meant I don't disagree that trump knew him.

Let me understand this then.
You don't disagree that Trump knew him, you just don't think that their having had a meeting is sufficient evidence of that.
I assume then that you must have seen some other kind of evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion that Trump did know him. Mind sharing?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The meeting in question wasn't with the president, either.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Trump is lying about his relationship with Papadopoulos.

 

[BobTheCoward]

He was in that meeting and trump named him specifically.

He was known to trump.


just stop.

I did not dispute that he was known to trump. I also agree that he was mentioned specifically. That is the key piece, not mere attendance.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Let me understand this then.
You don't disagree that Trump knew him, you just don't think that their having had a meeting is sufficient evidence of that.
I assume then that you must have seen some other kind of evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion that Trump did know him. Mind sharing?

Trump mentioning by name (including at that meeting supposedly).

 

[TofuFighter]

actually, nvm. I don't think we really need to carry on with this in here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Would you say that after the meeting, those people were known to you?

No.

 

[TofuFighter]

In the meantime, Trump in a dither...