The Trump Presidency: Part 20

[turingtest]

I agree. I began to suspect where the post was going to go when I got to this part:

This CT has been done to death by the right and for anyone who claims to be objective at all to continue to believe it is ludicrous:

Snopes graded the Right's Uranium One "conspiracy" FALSE,

Factcheck.org said " Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Politifact gave the Trump's allegation a Mostly False

The WAPO Fact Checker gave Trump's accusations its worst rating of Four Pinocchios

It just went downhill from there with this:


After the Uranium One nonsense, that did not come as a surprise. However, it got worse when he started with this:


It became quite clear that trying to debate in an intellectually honest way would be impossible.

I'm still trying to decipher this little tidbit-

It's amazing to me how "homogeneously mentally disabled" to scrutinize the credibility of someone is ... only to be fully restored when the allegation is made about someone else.

It's amazing to me that that's a sentence in English that somehow defies any reasonable attempt at parsing. It's the kind of gibberish I've seen from autodidacts who flunked the course; big words sound smart, so me use big words, me smart.

 

[TrumanHW]

Jesus Christ, what a mess that was; there's a big old honkin' "QUOTE" button down there on the bottom right of each post. This ain't rocket surgery, man...(h/t David Lee Roth)

As for the bit I quoted above- you do know that in her opening statement, she said this?


Seriously- did all that "background in Law Enforcement, in search warrants, investigating crimes, rights of the accused, the criteria, etc etc." not include a course in how to Google information?

And I have to tell you, someone who can get something as basic as that so badly wrong doesn't really inspire much confidence that it would be worthwhile to bother wading through a mess like your post to check on anything else you might say.

ETA this link to a transcript of Dr. Ford's opening statement.

That was about half-way through what I'd written.

She still wasn't particularly specific -- the week would've been better... or saying "on a Friday or Saturday night ... between late-July and early-August I'd attended a party on such and such a street... and was driven there by so-n-so."

No one else remembers any of her allegations if I recall. And with regard to my recollection of the Ford/Kavanaugh BS ... wasn't this about 18 months ago now..?


But anything I say should be dismissed because of my lack of precision describing her vagaries..? Haha. You don't even see the irony of that, do you?

Others who'd made similar allegations admitted to have lied, yet no one takes a second to rethink their criteria for believing claims..?


You're guilty of motivated reasoning.

I disagreed with Kavanaugh's likely beliefs and would prefer abortions remain legal. Though, I cannot see how abortions should be a legal right! Why would a medical procedure be covered under a 'Right to Privacy..? You have a right to privacy under other rulings, anyway. Why aren't other procedures provided such 'privacies' ..?

It's more accurate to cover it under states rights... and regardless with how, I'm still Pro Choice.

But I would bet money that MOST people who believed all women (aka, took Ford's word for something we usually reserve for judgement by a jury of your peers) ... would DIRECTLY map on to people's beliefs and concerns over a pro-choice or pro-life argument.


The difference between you and people who provide the cover for your irrational beliefs ... is a list of latin phrases referring to biases & fallacies.

ANYTHING SHORT OF PLACING THE ONUS OF PROOF ON THE PERSON MAKING THE ALLEGATION IS UNAMERICAN and UNPRINCIPLED.

The extent to which I am a conservative ... is my gratitude and respect for The Constitution and the Rights which flows from it.


Considerations of Fords credibility -- to the extent I accurately recall:
Anyone educated in psychology would learn how fallible eye-witness testimony is. She'd lied about helping someone take a polygraph. She committed credit card fraud and lied about it to her bf until he was going to tell the police -- at which point she admitted to it.

Not to mention ... PATERNITY FRAUD: Of which, up to 25% of men have been lied to by women.

Just how seriously am I to take someone who'd argue to believe people based on their gender..?

 

[SezMe]

Trump Tweets

Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans.
@foxandfriends

Exhibit Number 10⁸ why Trump is a disaster. He cares not one whit for the country but only for his own tribe. That's second only to himself.

Also, I note the heads-up to Fox. Hannity is the VP, not Pence.

 

[SezMe]

Trump has announced Kayleigh McEnany -- his former 2020 campaign spokesperson -- has been named the new White House press secretary, replacing Stephanie Grisham who, in nine months as press secretary, never held a press conference.<snip>(

Yet another Fox bimbo. She has emphatically stated that Trump has never lied! Stephen Miller is probably having wet dreams about working with her.

 

[TrumanHW]

I'm still trying to decipher this little tidbit-



It's amazing to me that that's a sentence in English that somehow defies any reasonable attempt at parsing. It's the kind of gibberish I've seen from autodidacts who flunked the course; big words sound smart, so me use big words, me smart.

citing an appeal to authority (snopes) isn't "proof"

There is no 'DIRECT PROOF' ... but the same guy who got the contract donated money to Clinton Foundation which they've yet to charitably donate..? Guess the world's just dandy.

If however, those same standards of 'DIRECT PROOF' were levied against all democrat-claims, Trump's administration would've been scandal free. LIVE BY CONSISTENT RULES.

Investors donate millions to the Clinton Foundation and give Bill a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia (where he met with Putin) around the time of the deal.

Curious ... How much does Bill usually get, again..?

Is it in the U.S. interest that Russia get Uranium, a resource the U.S. actually needs..?



Frankly, I'd like to have the time to break it down to breadcrumbs, but I don't.

Regardless of what I say, you've already chosen what you'll believe.

Generally speaking -- Even if 3/8 statements I made seemed logical or you actually looked up to be demonstrably true, you already resent one opinion of mine, so the only thing you're going to do is try to hump my leg by arguing some point you think you have evidence for.


You're intellectually dishonest, driven by beliefs you want to be true ... instead of basing your beliefs on the dispassionate assessment of facts.

Here, let me help you feel better.

Whatever you wish // need to be true, is true. Be happy, but do it absent pretending to discuss something with me.

 

[SezMe]

I still don't even think he did it.

You have to sign your mail-in ballot...well, at least it's that way in California. It's a federal crime to sign for someone else.

 

[turingtest]

That was about half-way through what I'd written.

Yes it was. It's a good thing that you noticed that- a good thing.

She still wasn't particularly specific -- the week would've been better... or saying "on a Friday or Saturday night ... between late-July and early-August I'd attended a party on such and such a street... and was driven there by so-n-so."

No one else remembers any of her allegations if I recall. And with regard to my recollection of the Ford/Kavanaugh BS ... wasn't this about 18 months ago now..?


But anything I say should be dismissed because of my lack of precision describing her vagaries..? Haha. You don't even see the irony of that, do you?

"Lack of precision"? You said she "wouldn't even provide the YEAR in which the supposed attack occurred." That's not imprecise, that's flat out completely wrong. And I'll repeat- Google. Your recall isn't the only tool available for fact-checking. If you can't be bothered to get even basic facts right, then the only irony is in you thinking you're entitled to be taken seriously.

Others who'd made similar allegations admitted to have lied, yet no one takes a second to rethink their criteria for believing claims..?


You're guilty of motivated reasoning.

Erm...yeah, ok. Is your reasoning un-motivated? It's certainly not very coherent- take this, for example-

I disagreed with Kavanaugh's likely beliefs and would prefer abortions remain legal. Though, I cannot see how abortions should be a legal right! Why would a medical procedure be covered under a 'Right to Privacy..? You have a right to privacy under other rulings, anyway. Why aren't other procedures provided such 'privacies' ..?

It's more accurate to cover it under states rights... and regardless with how, I'm still Pro Choice.

You would prefer abortions remain legal but can't see how they should be a legal right? And you don't see anything at all wrong with that?

But I would bet money that MOST people who believed all women (aka, took Ford's word for something we usually reserve for judgement by a jury of your peers) ... would DIRECTLY map on to people's beliefs and concerns over a pro-choice or pro-life argument.


The difference between you and people who provide the cover for your irrational beliefs ... is a list of latin phrases referring to biases & fallacies.

What does this even mean? C'mon man, your attempts at being coy are just about as bad as your attempts to be clear.

ANYTHING SHORT OF PLACING THE ONUS OF PROOF ON THE PERSON MAKING THE ALLEGATION IS UNAMERICAN and UNPRINCIPLED.

The extent to which I am a conservative ... is my gratitude and respect for The Constitution and the Rights which flows from it.

Right. Unless it's the legal right to abortion, which you don't think should be a legal right, even though you're pro-choice and think women should be able to choose abortion without a right to so choose. Hey, was Constitutional Law something that was a part of your "background in Law Enforcement, in search warrants, investigating crimes, rights of the accused, the criteria, etc etc."? I bet it was one of those etceteras, wasn't it?

Considerations of Fords credibility -- to the extent I accurately recall:
Anyone educated in psychology would learn how fallible eye-witness testimony is. She'd lied about helping someone take a polygraph. She committed credit card fraud and lied about it to her bf until he was going to tell the police -- at which point she admitted to it.

Not to mention ... PATERNITY FRAUD: Of which, up to 25% of men have been lied to by women.

Just how seriously am I to take someone who'd argue to believe people based on their gender..?

Gotcha- anything Donald Trump did before his presidency is totally irrelevant, just no bearing at all on assessing his credibility now. Ford, OTOH- now, see she did a credit card fraud, and lied to her boyfriend- so, credibility completely impeached, who would believe such a liar?

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I'm still trying to decipher this little tidbit-



It's amazing to me that that's a sentence in English that somehow defies any reasonable attempt at parsing. It's the kind of gibberish I've seen from autodidacts who flunked the course; big words sound smart, so me use big words, me smart.

citing an appeal to authority (snopes) isn't "proof"

There is no 'DIRECT PROOF' ... but the same guy who got the contract donated money to Clinton Foundation which they've yet to charitably donate..? Guess the world's just dandy.

If however, those same standards of 'DIRECT PROOF' were levied against all democrat-claims, Trump's administration would've been scandal free. LIVE BY CONSISTENT RULES.

Investors donate millions to the Clinton Foundation and give Bill a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia (where he met with Putin) around the time of the deal.

Curious ... How much does Bill usually get, again..?

Is it in the U.S. interest that Russia get Uranium, a resource the U.S. actually needs..?



Frankly, I'd like to have the time to break it down to breadcrumbs, but I don't.

Regardless of what I say, you've already chosen what you'll believe.

Generally speaking -- Even if 3/8 statements I made seemed logical or you actually looked up to be demonstrably true, you already resent one opinion of mine, so the only thing you're going to do is try to hump my leg by arguing some point you think you have evidence for.


You're intellectually dishonest, driven by beliefs you want to be true ... instead of basing your beliefs on the dispassionate assessment of facts.

Here, let me help you feel better.

Whatever you wish // need to be true, is true. Be happy, but do it absent pretending to discuss something with me.

I'm very glad you got the hang of using the Quote button- that's very good indeed, very good. Now, let's work on responding to the post you've pushed the Quote button for, shall we?

ETA- Stacy, don't be humping the man's leg, ok?

 

[newyorkguy]

The cumulative effect of Trump's spotty performance re the coronavirus are reflected in the latest polling. Reuters found:

President Trump’s approval rating has dipped back after a brief bounce.

• President Trump’s approval rating has returned to 40% among all Americans.
• Approval continues to fall along party lines: President Trump holds the approval of 86% of Republican registered voters, and just 9% of Democratic registered voters.
• American approval of the president on his handling of COVID-19 has dropped six points from last week (48%) to 42%.

Link

NBC News reports:

It's a reversal of fortune for a president who benefits from a committed minority of supporters but has never quite managed to win over a majority of the country. Link

Trump's waffling from 'this is nothing,' to 'open by Easter,' to 'a lot of people are going to die.' News reports that show he is using medical supplies to punish officials who criticize him. It appears Trump removed the coronavirus relief fund inspector general so Trump can play some games with the money. All of these things seem to be having a cumulative effect on public opinion. Where more and more Americans are concluding:

 

[SezMe]

Serious question: Does Pence actually have the authority to do that? Yes, he's "in charge" of the public appearances but does he really have the power to tell Birx/Fauci where they can and cannot appear?

Implicitly, yes. "One more appearance on CNN and we'll show you to the door." Works quite well as numerous examples of Trump dumping people who said things he didn't like so it's not an idle threat.

 

[SezMe]

How long before they start blaming the Covid-19 crisis and resulting financial collapse on Biden and the Democrats?

November 4, 2020.

 

[SezMe]

Ya know, that's just how I read it 'til you pointed it out! Silly me!

Yeah, I had to read it 3-4 times before I could grok it.

 

[SezMe]

Not to mention ... PATERNITY FRAUD: Of which, up to 25% of men have been lied to by women.

You want a serious, unbiased discussion. OK, provide evidence to support this claim.

 

[Stacyhs]

citing an appeal to authority (snopes) isn't "proof"

And THAT is the standard reply to hand wave away 4 different non-partisan fact finding sights. It's the same "Don't believe the experts! That's just appealing to authority!" nonsense.

There is no 'DIRECT PROOF' ... but the same guy who got the contract donated money to Clinton Foundation which they've yet to charitably donate..? Guess the world's just dandy.

"DIRECT PROOF'? Hell, there's NO proof of any kind. You do realize that this has been investigated by Clinton's political enemies and they haven't been able to find anything, right? That's why they had to turn to ridiculous conspiracy theories that appeal to a certain mindset.

If however, those same standards of 'DIRECT PROOF' were levied against all democrat-claims, Trump's administration would've been scandal free. LIVE BY CONSISTENT RULES.

Hahaha! Because there were several high ranking, respected figures equivalent to Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Kurt Volker, Col. Vindman, and Michael Atkinson, etc who testified under oath to Congress that Clinton was involved in a dirty deal with Uranium One. Right?

Investors donate millions to the Clinton Foundation and give Bill a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia (where he met with Putin) around the time of the deal.

Curious ... How much does Bill usually get, again..?

Yes, lots of investors donate to the CF. A foundation that gets an A rating from Charity Watch. Let's compare that to the Trump Foundation...oh, wait, we can't. It was dissolved after Trump got a nice $2 million fine for being....less than honest?

Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

You do realize, don't you, that Clinton didn't have the power to approve or disapprove of the merger alone? Nine others in had to sign off on it: the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).
Oh, no! All those department secretaries must have been in on the conspiracy!

Is it in the U.S. interest that Russia get Uranium, a resource the U.S. actually needs..?

The US has plenty of uranium:

Neither the U.S. nor Russia needs highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The countries have more than 4,000 deployed or stockpiled weapons each, far more than the rest of the world combined. Both still have leftover stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that date to the Cold War.

Some of Uranium One's U.S. uranium has gone to Canada and Europe, according to The Hill newspaper. But there is no evidence that any of it has gone to Russia.

Rosatom's more likely motivation for purchasing Uranium One was to gain access to the company's far larger uranium production in Canada and in Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/561587174/the-alternative-russia-scandal

Oh, no! I'm appealing to authorities like The Hill and NPR!

Frankly, I'd like to have the time to break it down to breadcrumbs, but I don't.

Regardless of what I say, you've already chosen what you'll believe.

Yeah, why don't you break it down for me because apparently I, and all those 'authorities' I'm appealing to don't get it.

Generally speaking -- Even if 3/8 statements I made seemed logical or you actually looked up to be demonstrably true, you already resent one opinion of mine, so the only thing you're going to do is try to hump my leg by arguing some point you think you have evidence for.

None of them seemed logical or were demonstrably true. You've given ZERO facts to support your claims. The only thing I've seen from you are conspiracy theories. What's next? Clinton is a member of the Illuminati?

You're intellectually dishonest, driven by beliefs you want to be true ... instead of basing your beliefs on the dispassionate assessment of facts.

Here, let me help you feel better.

Whatever you wish // need to be true, is true. Be happy, but do it absent pretending to discuss something with me.

Right...the only person here providing evidence with citations is the one being "intellectually dishonest" and not basing them on facts. OKAAAAAAY....

 

[I Am The Scum]

Anyone who spends more than two sentences responding to Truman has fallen for a very obvious trap.

Instead, spend your time studying the alt-right playbook so you don't make the same mistake again.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Anyone who spends more than two sentences responding to Truman has fallen for a very obvious trap.

Instead, spend your time studying the alt-right playbook so you don't make the same mistake again.

Cracked me up when this little bit of paranoia slipped out...


"(It's too "dangerous" to let me post URL's you see..?)"

[emoji1]

 

[Mumbles]

Stay woke

First, don't abuse terms you clearly don't understand (and you *clearly* are misusing the word "woke" in it the white conservative meaning, and not the actual black Twitter meaning).

Second, pushing the president (and more importantly, senators, representatives, and councilmen) is, in fact, a far better approach than the 2008-2010 behavior, where so-called leftists sat at home pouting when Obama "didn't push for Medicare for All" and "didn't pull all the troops out of Afghanistan", two things he outright stated he would not do when he was campaigning.

 

[Polaris]

...snipped a load of feces...

TL: DGAF.

 

[Stacyhs]

Anyone who spends more than two sentences responding to Truman has fallen for a very obvious trap.

Instead, spend your time studying the alt-right playbook so you don't make the same mistake again.

I have several trolls/ding bats on my ignore list.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Trump tweets

The Wall Street Journal always “forgets” to mention that the ratings for the White House Press Briefings are “through the roof” (Monday Night Football, Bachelor Finale, according to @nytimes) & is only way for me to escape the Fake News & get my views across. WSJ is Fake News!

There's no sports happening to report on TV, The Bachelor and Big Brother are finished, there's nothing to watch but Turner Classics and re-runs of Gilligan's Island and The Munsters. The only important news is the calamitous COVID toll he has facilitated on the USA because of the decisions his team has made and then what he says at every press briefing he holds. And yet the tangerine twat is STILL trying desperately to grab all the spotlights he can. He's always ready for his close-up, Mr DeMille.