• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/BlackBelted/status/1095765256620703749



Before folks think these are all white collar pros who take vissisitudes like this into account working client-to-consultant, this applies to janitors, cafeteria workers and maintenance all of whom worked during the shutdown for fear of losing their jobs. This is a big FU to them
Click to expand...


I would like to see evidence that non-employee contractor janitors, cafeteria workers and maintenance workers showed up en masse to work, unpaid, during the shutdown. Color me skeptical of that claim.
 
varwoche said:
It's my distinct sense you are clue-challenged as to the meaning of the word evidence. The general public, educated by TV courtroom dramas, seems to think that circumstantial evidence is invalid. Especially Trump cultists. (Not to imply you're a Trump cultist. I don't think that at all.)
Click to expand...

Oh no no. They think it's perfectly valid, but not when their guy stands accused.
 
The direct link to the article in question here :)

ETA: Uh, sorry, that was meant to be a quoted reply to Ladewig.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Others just feel so abandoned and forgotten that they don't give a ****. If rest of America gets screwed they had it coming
Click to expand...
This actually is true for both "sides" - it's probably what a lot of Trump voters were thinking in 2016, and IMO that thinking may be common among younger people as well. We saddle them with more debt, refuse to address climate change, and have lost many jobs to automation and/or outsourcing. I'd like to see them more engaged, but absent a raging war that kills 10 percent of deployed personnel it seems like a tough sell.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The issue is that the total of circumstantial evidence does not minimize a non-collusion explanation.
Click to expand...
In the same was that total of evidence that terrorists crashed planes into the world trade center on 9/11 does not minimize a non-terrorist explanation for the building's collapse.

In other words, if NOBODY (not you, not Trump, not Trump's racist fanboys) can come up with an explanation that explains the evidence and actions of various people involved, then its a pretty sure thing that collusion is the most likely explanation.

Otherwise, you have to admit... you're just like a 9/11 troother.
 
Segnosaur said:
In the same was that total of evidence that terrorists crashed planes into the world trade center on 9/11 does not minimize a non-terrorist explanation for the building's collapse.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, because the circumstantial evidence there is actually good. Crazy how that works, I know.
 
BobTheCoward said:
In the same was that total of evidence that terrorists crashed planes into the world trade center on 9/11 does not minimize a non-terrorist explanation for the building's collapse.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, because the circumstantial evidence there is actually good. Crazy how that works, I know.
Click to expand...
And I'm sure the 9/11 Troothers feel the same way about the evidence surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They do the exact same thing you do... claim "The evidence isn't strong/credible/etc.".

Then when you try to actually get them to come up with an explanation that actually matches the evidence, they squirm away. "Oh, I'm just asking questions." "I don't really know what happened."

You should be proud.... you're in the same crowd as such notable academics as Stephan Jones and Dylan Avery.
 
Segnosaur said:
And I'm sure the 9/11 Troothers feel the same way about the evidence surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They do the exact same thing you do... claim "The evidence isn't strong/credible/etc.".

Then when you try to actually get them to come up with an explanation that actually matches the evidence, they squirm away. "Oh, I'm just asking questions." "I don't really know what happened."

You should be proud.... you're in the same crowd as such notable academics as Stephan Jones and Dylan Avery.
Click to expand...

If only there was a way to distinguish the two.
 
I'm hoping his twitter account puts out one for Sandy Hook too, to drive conspiracy theorists up the wall.
 
Segnosaur said:
And I'm sure the 9/11 Troothers feel the same way about the evidence surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They do the exact same thing you do... claim "The evidence isn't strong/credible/etc.".

Then when you try to actually get them to come up with an explanation that actually matches the evidence, they squirm away. "Oh, I'm just asking questions." "I don't really know what happened."

You should be proud.... you're in the same crowd as such notable academics as Stephan Jones and Dylan Avery.
Click to expand...

I agree with everthing you say, but I have to remind you that when you engage in discussion with being who lives under a bridge, you give them exactly what they want.
 
Stacyhs said:
Agreed. But whoever did write it just underscored that fact that they're full of platitudes but haven't done a damn thing to prevent it from happening again. Which it will.:mad:
Click to expand...

As an aside, The BBC World Service HARDtalk radio programme had an interview with

March for our Lives co-founder Cameron Kasky


https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswjg9

Worth a listen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom