LosLobo

Possibly the main delay was Trump's sacking of Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney in Manhattan, who was investigating 'Individual One' after the Cohen conviction. Inside William Barr's Effort to Undermine N.Y. Prosecutors - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Inside William Barr's Effort to Undermine N.Y. Prosecutors - The New York Times (archive.md)

The delay of Donald Trump’s sentencing until after the 2024 election raises three major concerns: Equal justice for all – The decision risks creating the perception that Trump is being treated differently due to his political status. Justice delayed is justice denied – Postponing the sentencing undermines timely accountability and could erode public confidence in the judicial system’s ability to enforce accountability. Unfair advantage over other candidates – The deferment allows Trump to continue campaigning without facing immediate consequences for these 34 election interference convictions, potentially repeating actions that could interfere with the upcoming election.

Meanwhile in the real world ....... 'August jobs report: Unemployment rate falls to 4.2%, labor market adds 142,000 jobs'. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate-falls-to-42-labor-market-adds-142000-jobs-182656446.html

I am losing three ways! Besides my 800k and pension payment for my monthly living expenses, my pension is reduced by the value of my assets and my Thai assets just increased by 10% 😞

I regularly go to Chumphon to get the western groceries I cannot get locally and usually take the family to KFC or Pizza Company. There is a farang bar and with some western food and another place called the Glass Cafe and Restaurant, near the train station and Ocean Plaza, but I have near been to them. Thung Wua Laem beach as previously mentioned has a thriving Expat Community but can be prone to some sand flies on the beach at certain times. It has the Curry Shack, English/Indian curries, a farang bar and various other restaurants including an Italian one. For more information try here : We live in Chumphon | Facebook

Best natural laxative I have ever used is half a dragon fruit and is cheap and available in every market.

Seems beside the logical errors of hasty generalization, straw man, appeal to popularity, oversimplification, dismissiveness, and false dichotomy, you have a reasoning and factual error in your understanding of the meaning of the word 'jurist'. Not all 'jurists are judges', but all judges can be jurists. By definition, in the United States, the term jurist refers to someone who is learned in the law, often encompassing legal scholars, lawyers, and judges. A jurist is typically recognized as an expert in jurisprudence, and their expertise often extends beyond practicing law to include studying, analyzing, and commenting on legal principles. While all judges can be considered jurists due to their role in interpreting the law, not all jurists are judges. The term can also apply to legal scholars or attorneys whose work significantly contributes to legal thought and doctrine. jurist | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) jurist Definition, Meaning & Usage | Justia Legal Dictionary .

Have a good evening 🙂

Unlike you I live in the real world.

You are obviously out of touch with the real world, just like your master. Out of Touch Trump Claims You Need to ID to Buy Bread.

Only Trump can fix it? His suggestion of requiring ID to purchase bread would only add a premium to the price, without addressing the real issue of inflation, which is a global problem.

You seem to be responding to my post about your red herring fallacy with another red herring. Also, you're discussing nuclear options but then say you don't want to discuss them. Have a good evening!

I suggest there is nothing funny in this thread or in your post. Though your post does raise some interesting points, there are a several logical issues to consider: Leading Question/Loaded Question Fallacy: The way some questions are framed, suggesting a specific answer and then commanding what the response should be, can be seen as a leading question fallacy. This approach biases the discussion by pushing towards a predetermined conclusion and limits open, balanced dialogue. False Analogy: Comparing the size of Russia and Ukraine to NATO’s size in relation to Russia oversimplifies the situation. Military conflicts involve many factors beyond just numbers, including strategy, alliances, and geopolitical interests. Straw Man Argument: The post sets up an oversimplified version of the argument to easily refute it. The complexity of international conflicts means suggesting only two possible outcomes—nuclear war or Russia’s defeat—does not capture the full range of possible scenarios. Red Herring: The focus on nuclear threats and size comparisons diverts from the real issues. A thorough understanding of the conflict requires examining political, strategic, and military aspects rather than just size and potential outcomes. False Dichotomy: Presenting only two possible outcomes—nuclear decision or Russia’s defeat—ignores other potential scenarios like diplomatic solutions or prolonged conflicts. Military engagements involve numerous variables that go beyond simple size comparisons. Oversimplification: The statement that “there are no chances for Russia to win” based on size alone is an oversimplification. The reality of military conflicts involves many factors that cannot be reduced to mere size comparisons. In summary, while your post raises interesting issues, it suffers from several logical fallacies, including leading questions, false analogies, straw man arguments, red herrings, false dichotomies, and oversimplifications. A more nuanced and open approach would better reflect the complexities of international conflicts and foster a more balanced discussion.

The post you shared seems to be structured in a way that mimics the logic of a faulty "if-else" statement in a programming language, together with logic and reasoning errors in the body text. Nevertheless, during his presidency, when did Trump ever restore peace in the Middle East instead of exacerbating it. Trump promised a plan for Middle East peace, yet he only gratified himself and his crime family, with the Abraham Accord quid pro quo, which only normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries who were never at war. Trump's policies, including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and a peace plan favoring Israel, alienated Palestinians and contributed to current ongoing regional tensions, contrary to his claims of fostering peace.

I’d like to offer some respectful and constructive criticism to help ensure our discussion remains productive and focused. Respect in all conversations is often reciprocated, so offering it first can help maintain a positive dialogue. Taking an adversarial stance tends to provoke a similar response, which can hinder meaningful exchange. It seems that some of your critique of the original poster (OP) may involve an ad hominem approach, where the focus is on their perceived inability to distinguish between arguments rather than on the specific content of their statements. This could shift the discussion away from the actual argument and toward the individual, which may not fully engage with the substance of what the OP is saying. Logical Considerations: False Dichotomy (Either/Or Fallacy): You’ve highlighted a viewpoint that seems to position one side (Republican) as always wrong and the other (Democrat) as always right. However, this might oversimplify the issue, as real-world situations are rarely black and white, and truth can be found across the spectrum of opinions. Appeal to Emotion: The mention of feeling mocked or not taken seriously introduces an emotional element. While it’s entirely valid to acknowledge emotions, focusing on them may divert attention from the logical aspects of the discussion. It might be helpful to keep the conversation grounded in facts and reasoning to maintain a constructive dialogue. Cheers

I too have not had any formal training, I recently just started using the available resources on YouTube. Here is a playlist on identifying illogical fallacies:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for acknowledging the points I raised. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. Regarding your first point: While it’s true that not all conspiracy theories are false, the issue lies in assuming that because some turned out to be true, others like Pizzagate or the Big Lie might also be true. This creates a logical leap. Each theory should be evaluated on its own evidence, rather than assuming a connection based on the outcome of unrelated theories. On your second point: You’re correct that if one conspiracy theory being false doesn’t disprove all others, then one being true doesn’t prove all others. That’s actually the point I was making—each theory needs to be assessed individually, without generalization. For the third point: Extrapolation can indeed lead to misinterpretation. When we extend someone’s comments beyond what was actually said, we risk creating a "straw man" argument, debating something they never claimed. It’s important to focus on the specific points made rather than making assumptions. On your fourth point: I appreciate your honesty. It’s easy to get caught up in the moment, and recognizing that is the first step toward having more productive discussions. Regarding the fifth point: Humor can be effective, but it can also obscure the argument or be misinterpreted. It’s helpful to clarify the intent to keep the discussion on track. Again, I appreciate the conversation and your openness. These discussions help us sharpen our thinking and communicate more effectively. Cheers!

Thank you for your response and for engaging with the points I raised. I’m happy to elaborate on the specific concerns about Trump’s references to Hitler and how they may reflect on his political stance. Trump's References to Hitler and Potential Implications: The concern isn't just about owning or reading "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes. It's about the broader context in which Trump has been associated with authoritarian tendencies and inflammatory rhetoric that some find troublingly reminiscent of historical fascist ideologies. When a public figure like Trump acknowledges owning a book like "Mein Kampf," it raises questions about what influence those ideas might have on his thinking and policies. Given the gravity of Hitler’s legacy, any reference to his work or ideology by a contemporary political leader can be unsettling, particularly if it aligns with behavior that appears to echo authoritarianism or demagoguery. Implications of Trump's Acknowledgment of Owning the Book: The acknowledgment of owning "Mein Kampf" could be seen as problematic because it might suggest either a fascination with or a willingness to engage with the ideas contained in the book beyond mere academic interest. The potential implications include concerns about whether Trump might admire or be influenced by the tactics and ideologies that Hitler espoused, particularly regarding propaganda, control of public opinion, and authoritarian governance. This is especially troubling given Trump's own contentious relationship with the media, his polarizing rhetoric, and accusations of inciting division. Why Reading "Mein Kampf" Might Be Unjustified or Unacceptable: While reading "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes isn’t inherently wrong, the context in which a political leader references or acknowledges the book matters. For a figure like Trump, who has been accused of authoritarian tendencies, references to Hitler’s work can be seen as particularly inappropriate or alarming. It’s not just about the act of reading the book, but how that knowledge is applied or interpreted in a political context. If it appears to influence policy or rhetoric in a way that echoes harmful ideologies, it becomes a cause for concern. Specific Concerns Raised About Trump’s Use of the Text: The specific concerns relate to the potential normalization of extremist ideas and the possibility that Trump might find inspiration in the propaganda techniques or authoritarian practices described in "Mein Kampf." This is particularly worrying given Trump's sometimes divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, which has drawn comparisons to the methods used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate power and control public discourse. The fear is that Trump's acknowledgment of owning the book might not be purely academic, but could reflect a deeper alignment with some of the strategies employed by historical dictators to manipulate public opinion and maintain power. I hope this clarifies the concerns and why these issues are significant when discussing Trump’s references to such a historically charged text.

Funny how my recent posts about Hitler and Goebbels' propaganda have generated so much hype with so few words—and so many illogical fallacies: Red Herring: By shifting the focus to the general practice of reading "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes, you divert attention from the specific concern about Trump's use of the text and its implications. This red herring distracts from the original criticism regarding Trump’s references to Hitler and how they may reflect on his political stance. False Equivalence: Your argument implies that because it is reasonable for leaders and politically interested individuals to read "Mein Kampf" for educational purposes, it is equally reasonable to overlook the potential implications of Trump's acknowledgment of owning a copy. This creates a false equivalence between the academic study of historical texts and the potential endorsement or association with problematic ideologies. Appeal to Tradition: The response suggests that it makes sense for leaders and politically interested individuals to read "Mein Kampf" as if it’s a standard practice. This appeal to tradition assumes that because something has been done or accepted in the past, it is inherently justified or acceptable, without addressing the specific concerns about how Trump’s use of the text might be perceived. Straw Man: By framing the argument as whether it makes sense for anyone to read "Mein Kampf," you might be misrepresenting the original critique, which is more about the potential implications of Trump's references rather than the general practice of reading historical texts. You try to weaken the argument by shifting the focus and failing to address the specific concerns raised about Trump’s use of the text.

Originality is something lacking in MagaWorld, which only seems to echo the Master's and Fox's rhetoric. Nevertheless, Hitler seems to still be Trump's poster boy, 'In the past, he's actually acknowledged owning a copy of the book' (Mein Kampf). Donald Trump's history with Adolf Hitler and his Nazi writings: ANALYSIS - ABC News (go.com)

I appreciate your acknowledgment of being somewhat vague about "debate terms", which are crucial for clear reasoning in any discussion. Here is my analysis of the illogical fallacies that you have used in your previous response. False Equivalence: You suggest that because some conspiracy theories have been proven true, all conspiracy theories, including those mentioned (Pizzagate, Birther, Big Lie), have a chance of being true. This is a false equivalence because not all conspiracy theories are created equal, and the fact that some have been true does not logically imply that others are equally likely to be true. Hasty Generalization: You make a generalization that because some conspiracy theories have been proven true, any conspiracy theory could be true. This is a form of hasty generalization, where a conclusion is drawn from insufficient evidence. Just because one or two theories turned out to be true does not mean that all theories, or even a significant number, are likely to be true. Straw Man: You misrepresent the OP's position by implying that they believe everything from the mainstream media (MSM) and Democrats without question. He did not make this claim; they merely pointed out that the specific conspiracy theories mentioned are not supported by evidence. Ad Hominem: You attack him personally by suggesting they are deluded and incapable of disbelief, rather than addressing the actual argument. This diverts the discussion from the original point and focuses on attacking the character of the person instead of the argument. Appeal to Ridicule: The reference to the "emperor not wearing any clothes" is an appeal to ridicule, implying that the OP is foolish or blind to the truth. This is used to dismiss the other person's argument without engaging with it logically. These logical fallacies weaken your argument by relying on flawed reasoning rather than engaging with the discussion on solid grounds. Understanding and avoiding these fallacies is important not just in formal debates but in any constructive discussion.

Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist who championed the 'big lie,' famously used the tactic of blaming others for what you yourself are guilty of. Similarly, Trump has sought to deflect responsibility for the disastrous 2021 Afghan withdrawal and distance himself from his past controversies with military families. By shifting blame, Trump attempts to rewrite history and avoid accountability for his actions. Trump's presidency, driven by his psychopathic narcissism, was marked by a troubling lack of empathy, particularly in his disrespect towards Gold Star families and the military. He suggested that Gold Star families were responsible for his COVID-19 infection and called fallen soldiers 'losers' and 'suckers.' He repeatedly insulted military heroes like John McCain, criticized the Khan family after their son’s death in Iraq, and dismissed top generals as "dopes and babies." His refusal to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and his attacks on decorated veterans like Admiral William McRaven and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman further exemplify his disdain for those who served. Even his recent disrespectful rhetoric about the Medal of Honor underscores a deeply troubling pattern of behavior unworthy of any future Commander-in-Chief.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 40/100 My Time 186 seconds  

Seems you might be the one who is disorganised, to hear her policies you need to watch her speeches instead of watching Faux News. Funnily Trump's has disavowed his policies, you know the ones he has set out in his Project 25.

Been watching Designated Survivor (TV Series 2016–2019) - IMDb lately. I never watched it before mainly because the burn-out from my years of watching Kiefer Sutherland in the never ending 24 series, with over 200 episodes. But it is quite good and very topical in the current heightened interest in US politics.