LosLobo

Pick an appropriate response from the Trump supporters' playbook: I didn’t see it. He didn’t mean it. You’ve taken it out of context. You obviously hate him. You are a lying SOB. By the way, did Biden steal the 2020 election from Trump? And will Trump concede if he loses next week?

No source as usual

I agree. A jury of Trump’s peers found him liable for sexual assault, making him a certified sex offender. With over 20 women, his ex-wife, and even a teen accusing him of sexual assault—many of these claims being legal cases—it’s a bit baffling to dismiss the pattern. You must be living in a vacuum.

Ah, the classic “who controls” distraction—always a go-to when facts become inconvenient. Questioning Authority: Skepticism is healthy, but let’s not confuse it with blanket distrust. Science is a process, not a puppet show, and peer-reviewed studies exist independently of “media control.” Misrepresentation of Safety: Dismissing Covid vaccines as unsafe ignores mountains of data from global health organizations. Just because you believe something doesn’t make others “deluded”—they might just be informed by evidence you choose to overlook. Challenging Consensus: The zoonotic origin theory is still under investigation. Just because lab-leak theories are getting air time doesn’t invalidate initial findings. And sure, the view on saturated fats has evolved, but that’s science adapting, not a conspiracy. Looking Past Legacy Media: Seeking information outside the mainstream isn’t inherently bad, but it demands discernment. Not all alternative sources are created equal, and simply dismissing consensus science doesn’t count as critical thinking. So, while you’re busy dismissing well-supported evidence, remember: the real delusion might be thinking that skepticism alone counts as informed reasoning.

So, your political science degree qualifies you to ignore the science and follow someone whose main credential in this area is a law degree? Solid critical thinking—right up there with trusting a plumber to do brain surgery. Your post reads like a checklist of logical fallacies: cherry-picking, red herrings, irrelevant authority, overgeneralization, confirmation bias, and even a touch of ad hominem. That's not critical thinking; it's just selectively contrarian noise. Are you following Trump “straight from the horse’s mouth” on every wild claim, too?

RFK Jr. is a known purveyor of conspiracy theories and vaccine misinformation, and you choose to believe him? Seems critical thinking isn’t your strong suit. So, are you ready to take everything “straight from the horse’s mouth” from Trump too? Did Trump win in 2020? Will he accept the 2024 results if he loses?

Seems your comment is the ridiculous one. Let’s be clear: people will suffer and die. RFK Jr. has publicly criticized these vaccines: Polio MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) HPV (Human Papillomavirus) Flu Vaccine COVID-19 Vaccines Hepatitis B DTP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis) He’s repeatedly questioned their safety and efficacy, often using outdated or debunked studies to back his claims. His potential leadership with Trump means these vaccinations would face increased scrutiny and potentially reduced mandates, reshaping public health policy in ways that challenge established vaccination standards. This isn’t “getting people healthy”—it’s putting them at risk.

The idiocracy is nigh. Trump's call to arms for Jan 6th, 'Be there, will be wild'. We know how that turned out. Now, Trump says he'll let RFK Jr. 'go wild' on health. Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb

Katie Johnson filed a $100 million lawsuit in 2016, naming Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein as co-defendants. She alleged they had assaulted her in 1994. However, the case was dismissed multiple times on procedural grounds and ultimately withdrawn just before the 2016 election. Johnson’s lawyer cited threats as a reason for her withdrawal, and no settlement or NDA was publicly acknowledged as part of this case. Donald Trump, Katie Johnson Allegations: Everything We Know - Newsweek

Along with RFK Jr', a “dream team” for a future pandemic, if ever there was one. With Trump’s track record of hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, RFK Jr. as Health Tsar pushing anti-vaccine rhetoric, and Musk’s X platform spiraling into conspiracy central, you’ve got a modern-day Gorgon.

Rupert's Wall Street Journal sticks to the facts because its readers demand reliability—financial markets and investors don’t play well with fiction. Meanwhile, Rupert's Fox News operates on a different business model: stir up emotions, play to biases, and keep viewers glued, even if that means bending, ignoring facts altogether, or just plain lying.

Looks like Elon may’ve fibbed on his immigration form. And there's Rupert? Admitted to lying on Fox, so who knows what he put down on his. Melania’s got her own flair for creative paperwork, and of course they are all with Trump, the master of bending reality to fit his narrative. Elon Musk’s U.S. citizenship in jeopardy as billionaire's past faces scrutiny: report

As will Jeff Bezos who canned the Washington Post Kamala endorsement, who would have thought why?

https://x.com/DVNJr/status/1850528968144814369

I have tried prunes, bran, suppositories, etc. half a dragon fruit a day seems to be the best for me.

Yes, I meant that Trump supporters give him a pass for his inflammatory rhetoric, while Biden is held to a different standard for minor gaffes. This non-equivalence is glaring and illogical. Trump has made a pattern of derogatory remarks, yet his base often brushes them off as part of his persona, whereas any misstep by the Democrats is magnified. This double standard creates a skewed narrative where accountability is unevenly applied. It’s concerning that this normalization of insults is accepted by many, further deepening the divisions in our political landscape.

So let me get this straight: Biden, who’s not even the candidate, made a gaffe, quickly acknowledged it, and clarified to avoid any misunderstanding. Meanwhile, Trump—no stranger to hurling outright insults—deliberately called Democratic voters “garbage” back in 2016, and recently allowed Puerto Rico to be labeled an “island of garbage.” This isn’t just a one-off slip; it’s a calculated strategy of divisiveness and insults. He’s the maestro of stoking hate, yet somehow he gets a pass?

Watching The Sinner (TV Series 2017–2021) - IMDb 7.9/10. Very watchable!

Your comparison doesn’t quite add up. Portland's 2016 protests had no fatalities, and while there was property damage, around 112 people were arrested. January 6th, however, saw a direct attack on Congress, resulting in 5 deaths, assaults on over 100 officers, and over 1,100 arrests with federal charges. Calling that a 'rowdy field trip' glosses over the violence and coordinated assault that day. Facts matter! Capitol attack: the five people who died | US Capitol attack | The Guardian

Put this under the category of crap you saw at Trump's 'Day of Love' rally:

Actually, Jon Stewart didn’t defend the rally joke or say he loved it. He pointed out that bringing a roast comedian to insult a key audience demographic was a poor decision on Trump’s part. Let’s keep to the facts. NYP garbage in, garbage out!

I like this one. https://x.com/DVNJr/status/1850528968144814369

Interesting, seems you have forgotten your last lesson on reasoning and logic, nevertheless here is a breakdown of your post: Straw Man Fallacy: You misrepresent my argument about Mel Gibson's drug and mental health issues by framing him as a "poster boy for rehabilitation." This shifts the focus away from the point that his struggles don’t lend him credibility on others' intellect or decisions. Ad Hominem: By attacking "leftists" as lacking intelligence and moral superiority, you sidestep the substance of my claims. This tactic aims to discredit individuals based on their political affiliation rather than engaging with the actual issues. Red Herring: When you bring up “Dems calling their opposition Hitler,” it distracts from the discussion about the misuse of rhetoric and misinformation in politics, leading us away from the original topic. False Dichotomy: You imply that Democrats either embrace "lies, fear, and hate" or offer "joy and unity." This oversimplification ignores the complexity of political discourse and the varied strategies that parties may adopt. Tu Quoque Fallacy: Your suggestion that Democrats are hypocritical for using fear tactics deflects from addressing the critique of Trump's misinformation and manipulation. Appeal to Ridicule: By likening serious concerns about political rhetoric to "kids calling their dads fascists for withholding their allowance," you trivialize the discussion and diminish the importance of the issues being raised. Slippery Slope: Your comparison of political opposition to parental disputes suggests that calling out authoritarianism is exaggerated, which undermines the legitimate concerns surrounding rising authoritarian rhetoric. Overgeneralization: When you state that "quite a few in the USA have made such laudable progress," you make vague assertions without providing evidence, which generalizes the success of rehabilitation efforts without addressing the specifics of the conversation. If you want to engage in meaningful discourse, it would be more productive to address the actual issues at hand rather than relying on fallacies and diversions.

Mel Gibson’s well-documented struggles with drug and mental health issues don’t exactly make him the poster boy for sound judgment on anyone else’s intellect or track record. It’s sad how Trump uses lies and misinformation to rally support from the IQ-challenged, as clearly shown in the OP video, and from those struggling with mental issues. This mirrors a dark historical pattern: Hitler initially exploited marginalized groups to gain support, only to later betray them, sending many of the vulnerable to concentration camps like Auschwitz. Authoritarian leaders frequently employ similar tactics, using and then discarding those they consider expendable.

Trump apologist's, three-D playbook: Deflect, as “MSM,” Deny, anything uncomfortable, and Demean, anyone critical by calling them “sheep.” Fact is, invoking Godwin's Law to put people down is a cheap tactic. Trump’s actions echo dangerous historical parallels with Hitler that you’d rather ignore than confront. If you want to debate substance, bring specifics—otherwise, it’s clear you’re just repeating the same old rhetoric.