Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 156: Debunked by Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

A girl might want to get married one day, but you probably shouldn't propose on the first date.
---

Terastodon posted...

Again, never been misleading/dishonest. I simply grouped the people who weren't completely against the concept of the decision.

Which is where it's misleading/dishonest, because there's no way to know how "horrified"/not that 36% may be. The only thing we know about the 36%, period, is that they do not support the current move. So grouping them with those that do becomes dishonest, because you have three groups:

Support it now (not horrified)
May support it later w/caveat (???)
Against it (could very well be horrified)

The fact that the middle group doesn't support it now leaves room for them to be "horrified." So grouping them with the obviously "not horrified" isn't honest.

Either way, this argument is dumb.

Yeah, Peaf had some really stupid word choice. The only reason I even responded is because the words you chose seemed to vehemently deny even the possibility, as if you were going full force in the opposite way, like to say "No, the majority are for it." That wasn't your intention, so there's really no argument. At this point we're just battling semantics.
---

kevwaffles posted...

A girl might want to get married one day, but you probably shouldn't propose on the first date.

Only Roy Moore thinks this 16 year old girl should get married now.
80% of Americans think she should get married some day when she is of legal age if she wants to.
20% of Americans think she should never get married.

"Wow 80% of Americans think this 16 year old should get married now or some time in the future."

Like I generally understand your point. But our point is that it is unfair to group those top two categories together like you are because the second group doesn't necessarily agree with the overall point you're trying to make.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Either way, this argument is dumb.

Yeah, Peaf had some really stupid word choice. The only reason I even responded is because the words you chose seemed to vehemently deny even the possibility, as if you were going full force in the opposite way, like to say "No, the majority are for it." That wasn't your intention, so there's really no argument. At this point we're just battling semantics.

Meaningless semantics arguments is like half of what we do here, though.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Like I generally understand your point.

I don't think you do because I was agreeing with you.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Like I generally understand your point.

I don't think you do because I was agreeing with you.

Yeah but Suprak felt like hitting you with the chair anyway

EDIT: Actually, I think he was just quoting your post to go "Yeah, this." and expanding on it. But I'll stick with the wrestling analogy anyway.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

EDIT: Actually, I think he was just quoting your post to go "Yeah, this." and expanding on it. But I'll stick with the wrestling analogy anyway.

Oh, that would make sense, but I'll sell the chair hit if it'll bring in the ratings.
---

kevwaffles posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

EDIT: Actually, I think he was just quoting your post to go "Yeah, this." and expanding on it. But I'll stick with the wrestling analogy anyway.

Oh, that would make sense, but I'll sell the chair hit if it'll bring in the ratings.

CAGE MATCH

(Yeah I was just building upon what you said and the "I generally understand what you mean" was directed at Tera. I probably could've made that clearer, on retrospect. But, still, CAGE MATCH.)
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I don't thing Peaf was being misleading though.

I just don't think he knew what he was talking about >_>

Yes he was. Eddv and peaf are notorious for it and damn tera you just scraped peaf hard.
---

Nah, peaf figured he had a FACT that supported his argument and it didn't even cross his mind to think about whether or not it actually held up. Because, he'd already decided it was a fact based on what he'd observed.

Nothing malicious at play, just completely taken in by his bubble and didn't pause to reflect.
---

Anyhoo, Tera, didn't mean to have any beef. As Suprak said, I think we just all like semantics arguments a bit too much. >_>
---

semantics arguments are life
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Anyhoo, Tera, didn't mean to have any beef. As Suprak said, I think we just all like semantics arguments a bit too much. >_>

Yeah, no sweat - I learned a very long time ago not to take to heart what people say.
---

I support moving the embassy in the future. I'm also horrified he wants to do it now. Wanting it in the future implies that one doesn't want it now.
---

Terastodon posted...

Yeah, my assumption is that Peaf was literally just guessing based on what his Facebook and Twitter feeds said.

This, and talking with others from my congregation.

Apologies for not being aware of actual polls that have been conducted. I should have stated that American Jews that i have personally discussed the matter with are horrified, and 90% of these Jews are reform, and 10% are conservative.
---

12/22/2017
NEW YORK MAGAZINE - Putin?s First Year in the White House

No American president in history has ever given Russia so much in so short a time. Congrats, Vladimir. You?ve achieved what no Soviet dictator ever managed to. Your asset in the White House, figurative or not, has given more than all the British and American traitors in the history of the Cold War.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-putins-first-year-in-the-white-house.html

*LINE BREAK*

?utm_campaign=di&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1&__twitter_impression=true
---

Generally anything after a question mark in a url is nonessential anyway.
---

You guys are never gonna believe this, but Donald Trump MAY be a racist:
https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/944615330927792128
---

So are the people cheerleading him. It's a feature, not a bug
---

https://twitter.com/cogentanalysis/status/944650730375401474
---

https://twitter.com/RisenLazarus/status/943953353821868032
---

SgtSphynx posted...

https://twitter.com/cogentanalysis/status/944650730375401474

As amused as I am by the idea of deporting the Hobby Lobby....

As a green card holder I have to admit I'm worried if the administration is going to make things harder on green card holders.
---

metroid composite posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

https://twitter.com/cogentanalysis/status/944650730375401474

As amused as I am by the idea of deporting the Hobby Lobby....

As a green card holder I have to admit I'm worried if the administration is going to make things harder on green card holders.

It's okay, MC. You're white, right. The MC doesn't even think of you as an immigrant.
---

Lmfao good bait
---

pxlated posted...

Lmfao good bait

You do have to wonder if Obama had did this what the reaction would be.

A lot of Obama's criticism was that he portrayed America as weak in foreign policy.
---

Obama wanted to look relaxed on a lot of foreign policy, but to the world it made us look strong.

Trump is attempting to go hard on foreign policy, but to the world it makes us look weak.

The former is quite clearly the better option. We weren't considered a joke under Obama. We still had repect, we have none anymore.
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Lmfao good bait

You do have to wonder if Obama had did this what the reaction would be.

A lot of Obama's criticism was that he portrayed America as weak in foreign policy.

No, i dont have to wonder, because he didnt do it. There's no point to that line of thought.
---

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Lmfao good bait

You do have to wonder if Obama had did this what the reaction would be.

A lot of Obama's criticism was that he portrayed America as weak in foreign policy.

No, i dont have to wonder, because he didnt do it. There's no point to that line of thought.

Then you do not have the capacity to call Ulti's comment bait. He is talking about a hypothetical that you refuse to even consider.
---

Oh ok
---

Anyway, the reason ulti's comment was a joke is because, as always, he bulldozed straight through all the nuance of the subject in order to bash liberals.
---

pxlated posted...

Anyway, the reason ulti's comment was a joke is because, as always, he bulldozed straight through all the nuance of the subject in order to bash liberals.

Welcome to ulti. He in general is a troll. But, I thought an underlying section of his thought in some way was discussable, which is why I brought it up.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Obama wanted to look relaxed on a lot of foreign policy, but to the world it made us look strong.

Trump is attempting to go hard on foreign policy, but to the world it makes us look weak.

The former is quite clearly the better option. We weren't considered a joke under Obama. We still had repect, we have none anymore.

I think a mixture is better. Obama was decidely weak. Trump is mostly acting strong the point that others think he is going too far.
---

Obama was decidedly weak what with his more drone and missile strikes than any president ever before, killing of Osama, continuing of foreign wars, troop surge, respect from world leaders etc etc
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Obama was decidedly weak

I agree.
---

Wow, great 4th grade level post there.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Wow, great 4th grade level post there.

Thanks.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnKHrBj7JaA
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Lmfao good bait

You do have to wonder if Obama had did this what the reaction would be.

A lot of Obama's criticism was that he portrayed America as weak in foreign policy.

No, i dont have to wonder, because he didnt do it. There's no point to that line of thought.

Then you do not have the capacity to call Ulti's comment bait. He is talking about a hypothetical that you refuse to even consider.

considering his dumb hypothetical would he taking the bait
---

Friday came and gone. Did Mueller get his "You're Fired"?

*rolls eyes*
---

Corrik posted...

Friday came and gone. Did Mueller get his "You're Fired"?

*rolls eyes*

I like how you pretend Trump's favorite news network hasn't been hammering home this idea that Mueller is partisan scum looking to take down the innocent Trump.
---

THEDavyJones posted...

Corrik posted...

Friday came and gone. Did Mueller get his "You're Fired"?

*rolls eyes*

I like how you pretend Trump's favorite news network hasn't been hammering home this idea that Mueller is partisan scum looking to take down the innocent Trump.

Does that make this obviously false rumor started by Democrats any more true? Don't understand the connection.
---

Well, one Democrat, tbf
---

Corrik posted...

Does that make this obviously false rumor started by Democrats any more true?

How are they false? He constantly tries to discredit the investigation, other Republicans are pushing for the investigation to end, the White House keeps saying the investigation is wrapping up despite repeated statements it will go well into the end of 2018.

There's nothing obviously false about it. He wants Mueller gone.
---

there was one specific guy who was like "Sources tell me Mueller's getting fired on the 23rd" or something that got posted here

that specific rumor is what Corrik is referring to
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

there was one specific guy who was like "Sources tell me Mueller's getting fired on the 23rd" or something that got posted here

that specific rumor is what Corrik is referring to

The Twitter linked was just a regurgitation of a CNN article from the week before yesterday which said Trump intended to fire Mueller this Friday. The sources were two Democratic lawmakers. It was laughed off by Trump. Then 2 days later that Twitter was linked here saying the same debunked firing story. It is even the basis of this topic title somehow.
---

yeah I didn't get why people were buying into that one. Even if I mostly don't trust Trump, I don't think he would explicitly publicly say he wasn't going to do a thing and then go ahead and do it like a week later.
---

Corrik posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

there was one specific guy who was like "Sources tell me Mueller's getting fired on the 23rd" or something that got posted here

that specific rumor is what Corrik is referring to

The Twitter linked was just a regurgitation of a CNN article from the week before yesterday which said Trump intended to fire Mueller this Friday. The sources were two Democratic lawmakers. It was laughed off by Trump. Then 2 days later that Twitter was linked here saying the same debunked firing story. It is even the basis of this topic title somehow.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/16/media/fox-news-campaign-against-fbi-robert-mueller/index.html

Yeah, it doesn't say that. At all. The closest thing is "The likely consequence is that this increases the odds of Trump attempting to fire Mueller."
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I don't think he would explicitly publicly say he wasn't going to do a thing and then go ahead and do it like a week later.

Except when he does. Which is a lot.
---

THEDavyJones posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I don't think he would explicitly publicly say he wasn't going to do a thing and then go ahead and do it like a week later.

Except when he does. Which is a lot.

like when
---