Why Are Readers Here...So...Interested in...Trump-Related Topics???

[cdemundo]

4 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

the availability of marmite. 

If I thought it was safe to do so I could tell tales of the conspiracies around this.

Don't even think about bringing up Peter Pan peanut butter.

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Congratulations, you have used multiple logical fallacies in your response and perfectly mimicked Trump in the art of 'Logical Fallacy' to appeal to the base.

 

More critical thinkers and certainly the courts use reasoning and logic and to these audiences I suggest your arguments fail as being legitimate and valid.

 

Briefly on analysis, you have used the ‘Tu Quoque’, ‘Hasty Generalization’ and ‘False Equivalence' fallacies.

I could go into more depth and explain these and where you have gone astray but would you really be interested?

I would rather you just explain how I was wrong, but since you can't do that, please, carry on. 

[cdemundo]

On 1/15/2024 at 8:12 AM, Gaccha said:

America has a long tradition of believing the government is out to get the people and Donald Trump offers that message back to them, as the "outsider". 

 

Every politician in America plays the polarisation card, claiming that they and they alone will be the outsider who will clean out the swamp. Trump is the reductio absurdium of that.

 

For midwit liberals, he is everything they despise about the lower classes such as the blunt racism and sexism. To them democracy means a polite sensible bureaucrat on the throne who changes nothing. Any threat to that to them is anti-democracy.

 

Obviously on this website there are more blue collars, so we should concentrate on them:

 

For midwit blue collars, he is a big middle finger to the establishment. Obviously in truth he is just the status quo with stage management.

 

The midwit blue collar like him because he annoys the midwit liberals. They laugh at the liberals for taking him literally ("fake news"), so it gives them a sense of superiority that liberal midwits do not understand the kayfabe (false theatrical front) of Trump.

 

They also see in him a little bit of themselves with his crass taste in gold and chandeliers, which is how they imagine they would furnish their place if they were rich.

 

Neither side wish to engage in the actual tedious details of politics. Politics was simply a spectator sport which has unexpectedly become their religion. And as with any religion there is a deep emotional investment and so considerable interest in the topic.

"Obviously on this website there are more blue collars, so we should concentrate on them:"

 

How do you know this?

Not challenging you observation, just curious how you know this.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, cdemundo said:

"Obviously on this website there are more blue collars, so we should concentrate on them:"

 

How do you know this?

Not challenging you observation, just curious how you know this.

 

2 clues. The first is that blue collar workers overwhelmingly support Trump. The second is that there is a high proportion of ex US mil here who also support Trump. I would include them as blue collar workers because of the recruitment patterns in the US military.  The proposition is a slam dunk.

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

"Obviously on this website there are more blue collars, so we should concentrate on them:"

 

How do you know this?

Not challenging you observation, just curious how you know this.

By simply being on this site would lend to that thought.   White collar folks with money, might come to TH once on a holiday, then afterward think ... "Why do people return ?"  Unless of course they limo from posh resort to post resort, avoiding all in between.

 

Don't think you find them in the back of a tuk tuk headed to soi cowboy/nana plaza or Soi 6 or bangla rd.   They just have their fun delivered via room service.

 

Them folks would be on the Fodors or Frommer's travel site/forum, that would cater to them, or don't even bother with forums, and simply have their 'personal assistant' plan something for them   

 

Edited January 17 by KhunLA

[cdemundo]

Thought better of it.

Edited January 17 by cdemundo
Thought better of it.

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I would rather you just explain how I was wrong, but since you can't do that, please, carry on. 

It is commendable that you wish for me to explain your error, but your ad hominem comment is not so much.

Ad hominem is another logical fallacy.

As a primer, this fallacy is when you attack the person and not the issue in a discussion.

It is often used as a diversion tactic to shift attention to an unrelated point like a person’s character or motives and avoid addressing the actual issue and is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

As the law itself uses reasoning and logic for its adjudication of a case, ergo, it can be seen as inappropriate and invalid to use logical fallacies here to support Trump in his legal cases.

 

Example:

In a property settlement case, a lawyer uses an ad hominem fallacy by asking the husband about his erectile dysfunction, a personal health issue is irrelevant to the case. This attack on the person rather than addressing the legal issues at hand is generally seen as invalid and illegitimate in a legal context.

In closing, would you still like a detailed analysis of your OP?

 

Edited January 17 by LosLobo

[Yellowtail]

38 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

It is commendable that you wish for me to explain your error, but your ad hominem comment is not so much.

Ad hominem is another logical fallacy.

As a primer, this fallacy is when you attack the person and not the issue in a discussion.

It is often used as a diversion tactic to shift attention to an unrelated point like a person’s character or motives and avoid addressing the actual issue and is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

As the law itself uses reasoning and logic for its adjudication of a case, ergo, it can be seen as inappropriate and invalid to use logical fallacies here to support Trump in his legal cases.

 

Example:

In a property settlement case, a lawyer uses an ad hominem fallacy by asking the husband about his erectile dysfunction, a personal health issue is irrelevant to the case. This attack on the person rather than addressing the legal issues at hand is generally seen as invalid and illegitimate in a legal context.

In closing, would you still like a detailed analysis of your OP?

 

Sure

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Sure

 

Thank you for your compelling reply.

'This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes'. Morpheus to Neo, The Matrix

 

Click the Blue Pill to remain here.
Click the Red Pill to begin discovery of the world of reason and critical thinking.

The Blue Pill

The Red Pill
 Tip: Click on the emoji

 

[bultaco44]

On 1/16/2024 at 4:22 AM, retarius said:

I think Trump stands out as the only hope for the US, for democracy and for politics. He is actually the only one (ever in the news) that is different from the Sunak, the Macrons and the Scholzs, the Haleys, and the Bidens.  

I will certainly vote for him if he keeps promising to cut all aid to Ukraine and not start any more wars. War is the ultimate evil and starting wars, as the US does, is the hallmark of an evil Empire. Do I believe him on all things, no, of course not, he tells lies, and may well be lying, plus he has to contend with deep state. If he is elected and starts an anti-war policy, I suspect he will be killed by the CIA.

Funnily enough, although he sails close to the wind, I'm personally convinced that he is much more honest than any politician in America and less likely to line his own pockets. 

I'm also probably one of only a few people on these boards ever to have worked with Trump, although admittedly it was a long time ago in 1992.

Someone, give this man a cigar.

 

I wouldn't vote for Trump, but he might be the "shake up" that's needed.

 

 

The other side is more of the same, which won't work

[retarius]

On 1/16/2024 at 3:20 PM, KhunLA said:

He's a GOD ... All Hail ... 

Great ad.

[stoner]

On 1/16/2024 at 1:43 PM, Bday Prang said:

There are one or two Uber woke members not here yet, either still sleeping off last night's intake or currently enjoying happy hour. I am pretty confident a lynch mob will soon assemble, and anybody who does not hate trump with a vengeance, or does not say so in strong enough terms will be targeted,  Let's wait and see

I would mention some user names but its probably against forum rules, and anyway I'm sure we all know those who I'm referring to

 

the avengers tend to stay away from threads like this. typically only in ones with a certain narrative. the pattern is clear for any regular visitor on this forum to see. 

 

don't forget how often they try to put words into others mouths. tell them how they are feeling. or what you really meant by a comment you posted. 

[Prubangboy]

300,000 unnecessary Covid deaths, 1700 from fattie urging retards to drink aquarium solvents.
 

If you love him, show it by drinking a bleach cocktail tonight -that’s after you shove a light bulb up your keister, which was his plan B.

 

Mass murder-wise, he was no Pol Pot. But Manson would be jealous.

[Njoku]

Well if you are not an American the fact such a person can get away with what he does and half the country supports him even after 6 plus years of it, it is still unbelievable leaving us in awe and with our mouths wide-open....

[Yellowtail]

42 minutes ago, Njoku said:

Well if you are not an American the fact such a person can get away with what he does and half the country supports him even after 6 plus years of it, it is still unbelievable leaving us in awe and with our mouths wide-open....

Only if you are fool enough to believe what you see in the press. 

 

Just look at who supports Trump, and who supports the left. 

[BigStar]

On 1/16/2024 at 2:51 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You tend to be fairly logical in your discussion of other topics such as sport and diet.

 

Thank you. I have a good opinion of your reasoning on various topics as well. It's shocking how some of our intelligent members whom I respect, who seem capable of rational, independent thought otherwise, can suddenly foam at the mouth and spew ignorance and MSNBC hatred when it comes to their political beliefs.  So I'll give you a more thoughtful view that should stretch the thread out 5 more pages. Reminds me of Morpheus' observation to Neo that

 

You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 2:51 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

it might be interesting to see if you think he is an appropriate and sensible option for president.

 

Mixed blessing, ain't he? We'd probably all wish for better choices. Trump, now, seems to have the best chance, among the Repubs, of getting elected. People prefer Trump from common sense, not ignorance or cultism or Bible-thumping or any of that other nonsense. Quite simply, things were better under his presidency. He did some major things right, as Jamie Dimon, CEO of J. P. Morgan Chase, no idiot, an Obama donor, said recently:

 

Jamie Dimon has a warning for Democrats: Don’t dismiss Trump supporters as people who are exclusively attracted to his personality. Former President Donald Trump was right about some critical issues, the JPMorgan CEO says.

     --Jamie Dimon: Trump was right about key issues and bashing MAGA will hurt Biden

 

He has the most charisma of the candidates and great, often annoying--if amusing--presence. Biggest problem is that he often doesn't deliver on his promises, and he does tell some porkies, indulge in childish name-calling, engage in conspiracy theories for his own benefit, etc. Where's The Wall? Can't have too much faith in politicians, eh. Lies and hyperbole are the coins of that realm.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 2:51 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Such a long road ahead for Trump to get back what he lost but still can't admit he lost. 

 

Indeed. 'Course, politicians gon' deny they lost their elections. Nothing new, 'cept Trump's the loudest monkey in the forest. Democrats Have A Lengthy History Of Casting Doubt On Election Results

 

The road ahead for Trump is not only to regain the presidency but then also to straighten out Biden's mess, domestically and internationally. Note that

 

Only one-third of U.S. adults say they approve of President Biden’s job performance — a record low for his presidency and for any president in the last 15 years.

     --https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4408318-bidens-approval-rating-drops-to-new-low-poll/

 

What makes the latter struggle harder is that he's so antagonistic that the Deep State, the legacy media, the leftist universities, and liberal tech, all benefitting from government largess, are arrayed against him. Even during his presidency, he was thwarted in more ways than one. Deep State Thwarted Trump’s Afghanistan Withdrawal Now gov't spending has already created inflation and astronomical debt. That limits his fiscal options considerably.

 

Despite all the tough guy talk, he was too weak in critical instances. Reagan, by contrast, made the hard choices. He, for example, brought on the recession needed to tame raging inflation. One may hope Trump's p*ssed off enough and tough enough now to get done at least PART of what needs to be done; and to choose better advisors and staff this time. The Repubs have been known as a gentlemanly, country club party. No longer viable; it's a war now. They gotta get down in the trenches and face the lying, thuggish opposition with force and their own lawfare. 

 

That will mean pain and a LOT more hysteria (including here, LOL), as if it couldn't get worse. But, despite the affirmative action bimbos, he's got solid constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. At least he's not worried about being re-elected. If his party wins both houses, he needn't worry about more impeachment hoaxes.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 2:51 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

That Republicans want him was possibly forgivable in 2016, but to think he is a morally appropriate or a capable candidate in 2024, is hard to comprehend.

 

Perhaps getting away from leftist news media and the regime talking points will be helpful. Hard to find; Google ignores alternatives. But brainwashed ain't no way to go through life, son. Here's a news aggregator. You can find more objective news and some intelligent, highly educated commentators there:

 

https://newsammo.com/

 

I read Victor Davis Hanson, among others, fairly often. Here's his Twitter feed:

 

https://twitter.com/VDHanson

 

How things have ended up under Biden:

 

A Culture in Collapse

 

This should address your morals concern; perhaps the morals on the other side should be of greater concern, esp when transgressions are ignored and politically privileged.

 

Lawfare Against Trump Is Running Out of Gas

 

Those jobs under Bidennomics: where do the majority come from? The Welfare-Industrial Complex

 

I trust that'll do. :)

 

 

Edited January 18 by BigStar

[Fat is a type of crazy]

10 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

Thank you. I have a good opinion of your reasoning on various topics as well. It's shocking how some of our intelligent members whom I respect, who seem capable of rational, independent thought otherwise, can suddenly foam at the mouth and spew ignorance and MSNBC hatred when it comes to their political beliefs.  So I'll give you a more thoughtful view that should stretch the thread out 5 more pages. Reminds me of Morpheus' observation to Neo that

 

You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

 

 

Mixed blessing, ain't he? We'd probably all wish for better choices. Trump, now, seems to have the best chance, among the Repubs, of getting elected. People prefer Trump from common sense, not ignorance or cultism or Bible-thumping or any of that other nonsense. Quite simply, things were better under his presidency. He did some major things right, as Jamie Dimon, CEO of J. P. Morgan Chase, no idiot, an Obama donor, said recently:

 

Jamie Dimon has a warning for Democrats: Don’t dismiss Trump supporters as people who are exclusively attracted to his personality. Former President Donald Trump was right about some critical issues, the JPMorgan CEO says.

     --Jamie Dimon: Trump was right about key issues and bashing MAGA will hurt Biden

 

He has the most charisma of the candidates and great, often annoying--if amusing--presence. Biggest problem is that he often doesn't deliver on his promises, and he does tell some porkies, indulge in childish name-calling, engage in conspiracy theories for his own benefit, etc. Where's The Wall? Can't have too much faith in politicians, eh. Lies and hyperbole are the coins of that realm.

 

 

Indeed. 'Course, politicians gon' deny they lost their elections. Nothing new, 'cept Trump's the loudest monkey in the forest. Democrats Have A Lengthy History Of Casting Doubt On Election Results

 

The road ahead for Trump is not only to regain the presidency but then also to straighten out Biden's mess, domestically and internationally. Note that

 

Only one-third of U.S. adults say they approve of President Biden’s job performance — a record low for his presidency and for any president in the last 15 years.

     --https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4408318-bidens-approval-rating-drops-to-new-low-poll/

 

What makes the latter struggle harder is that he's so antagonistic that the Deep State, the legacy media, the leftist universities, and liberal tech, all benefitting from government largess, are arrayed against him. Even during his presidency, he was thwarted in more ways than one. Deep State Thwarted Trump’s Afghanistan Withdrawal Now gov't spending has already created inflation and astronomical debt. That limits his fiscal options considerably.

 

Despite all the tough guy talk, he was too weak in critical instances. Reagan, by contrast, made the hard choices. He, for example, brought on the recession needed to tame raging inflation. One may hope Trump's p*ssed off enough and tough enough now to get done at least PART of what needs to be done; and to choose better advisors and staff this time. The Repubs have been known as a gentlemanly, country club party. No longer viable; it's a war now. They gotta get down in the trenches and face the lying, thuggish opposition with force and their own lawfare. 

 

That will mean pain and a LOT more hysteria (including here, LOL), as if it couldn't get worse. But, despite the affirmative action bimbos, he's got solid constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. At least he's not worried about being re-elected. If his party wins both houses, he needn't worry about more impeachment hoaxes.

 

 

Perhaps getting away from leftist news media and the regime talking points will be helpful. Hard to find; Google ignores alternatives. But brainwashed ain't no way to go through life, son. Here's a news aggregator. You can find more objective news and some intelligent, highly educated commentators there:

 

https://newsammo.com/

 

I read Victor Davis Hanson, among others, fairly often. Here's his Twitter feed:

 

https://twitter.com/VDHanson

 

How things have ended up under Biden:

 

A Culture in Collapse

 

This should address your morals concern; perhaps the morals on the other side should be of greater concern, esp when transgressions are ignored and politically privileged.

 

Lawfare Against Trump Is Running Out of Gas

 

Those jobs under Bidennomics: where do the majority come from? The Welfare-Industrial Complex

 

I trust that'll do. :)

 

 

Thanks for that. The following may seem like stock standard anti Trump stuff but here’s my opinion.

 Can’t go with the notion of  Trump as simply a tad more extreme or the loudest monkey. I note, for example,  that in the article about denying election results there is a clear difference between some somewhat valid comments and questioning of say the 2000 Florida result, that may be churlish at times but with no serious attempt to take the issue further, compared to Trump’s ongoing straight out outrageous refusal to accept that he lost based on nothing, leading to January 6 etc. 

I notice many who talk of Biden’s failings look in terms of poll numbers rather than what he has achieved – possibly because of the clearly strong economy. Inflation will always affect polls, and it hadn’t been helped by some early Biden spending and the effect of Biden’s strong economy, but had been overwhelmingly a worldwide problem brought on by the Covid spending, and is now coming down.

There have been failings . The border issue is serious. I note too that, after your Afghanistan article, Biden did of course leave, though no doubt the withdrawal was botched.

Biden’s age and communication skills impact his polls and prospects.

 

In the latter part of your thread we clearly part ways. To seemingly describe Biden and the Democrats as lying thugs, who have to be addressed by utilising the rule of law, seems incredibly ironic.  

I suppose some see Trump still as someone, who despite a bit of bravado and nonsense,  is deep down smart, and that is interests are consistent with the best interests of the nation.

The alternative view is that it is not overstated or deranged to see him as a potential threat to democracy and the rule of law. That’s a whole separate topic.  Take two examples though,  January 6 and  the fake electors scheme,  and  his treatment of highly classified records. 

If he had sufficient smarts, and control over his narcissism, he would have seen both were actions had been highly dangerous, and doomed to failure due to the dumb and hopeless way he went about things, causing himself and the country serious and unnecessary problems to deal with in the future.

[GammaGlobulin]

33 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If he had sufficient smarts, and control over his narcissism, he would have seen both were actions had been highly dangerous

 

This is COMPLETE nonsense...just because....

Almost anyone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, by definition, is unable to have control over his narcissism.

 

AND, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is almost impossible to treat, simply because the narcissist has no motivation to change....just due to the symptoms of his illness....even though it is also possible that the narcissist may have limited insight into his condition.

 

Read what you write...and then edit out what is bogus, is all that I am suggesting....

 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

10 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

This is COMPLETE nonsense...just because....

Almost anyone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, by definition, is unable to have control over his narcissism.

 

AND, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is almost impossible to treat, simply because the narcissist has no motivation to change....just due to the symptoms of his illness....even though it is also possible that the narcissist may have limited insight into his condition.

 

Read what you write...and then edit out what is bogus, is all that I am suggesting....

 

 

 

You can be a thing or alternatively have tendencies towards a type of behaviour that is that thing. Most are in the latter category and surely have a bit of self awareness to seek treatment or manage symptoms. If he is the full narcissistic package maybe it is a lost cause. 

[GammaGlobulin]

24 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You can be a thing or alternatively have tendencies towards a type of behaviour that is that thing. Most are in the latter category and surely have a bit of self awareness to seek treatment or manage symptoms. If he is the full narcissistic package maybe it is a lost cause. 

 

Question:  Do you ever find your writing style to be a bit dense and stilted?  Or, is it just me?

 

Of course, when one deigns to publish their work on a public site, such as TV, then one should not only expect critique, but one should also be willing to meticulously find fault in what one writes, even before submitting it for public viewing.

 

Not sure whether or not you might agree.

 

I am now considering offering my services to writers on TV as a writing consultant, either for free if the budding writer is poor, or for donations to a good cause if the aspirant is rich.

 

Hit me up, if you would take me up on this one-time offer.

 

I am sure that we can cut your verbosity down to size, quite easily, in order to make it more readable, not only to you, but to everyone else.

 

Don't delay, is my best advice to you....

 

Best regards,

Gamma

 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

I had problems adding to your post Mr Gamma. I did consider whether to do a long cut short post but it was targeted to Big Star in particular so had to reply to his range of points. But I’ll take your feedback on board. 

Edited January 19 by Fat is a type of crazy

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

45 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Question:  Do you ever find your writing style to be a bit dense and stilted?  Or, is it just me?

 

Of course, when one deigns to publish their work on a public site, such as TV, then one should not only expect critique, but one should also be willing to meticulously find fault in what one writes, even before submitting it for public viewing.

 

Not sure whether or not you might agree.

 

I am now considering offering my services to writers on TV as a writing consultant, either for free if the budding writer is poor, or for donations to a good cause if the aspirant is rich.

 

Hit me up, if you would take me up on this one-time offer.

 

I am sure that we can cut your verbosity down to size, quite easily, in order to make it more readable, not only to you, but to everyone else.

 

Don't delay, is my best advice to you....

 

Best regards,

Gamma

 

 

 I did consider whether to do a long cut short post but it was targeted to Big Star in particular so had to reply to his range of points. But I’ll take your feedback on board thanks. 

Expand  

 

An improvement, certainly.

Some cannot accept constructive criticism.

Nice to know that you can.

 

 

[FruitPudding]

Well, he takes care of his own country which is admirable and rare in the West these days

[Njoku]

17 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Only if you are fool enough to believe what you see in the press. 

 

Just look at who supports Trump, and who supports the left. 

We are watching from afar, the Australian press back in 2016 was making mr Trump look like well....so when I found myself out of news for 2 weeks in Havana then collecting my case at Mexico City air port with tv screens in all directions flashing Trump it became obvious he won the election, shock, this time around everyone is a lot more guarded can he win? no idea but seriously if he did I might see my investments take another nose dive...is he good for the US or the world? 

[GammaGlobulin]

7 minutes ago, Njoku said:

We are watching from afar, the Australian press back in 2016 was making mr Trump look like well....so when I found myself out of news for 2 weeks in Havana then collecting my case at Mexico City air port with tv screens in all directions flashing Trump it became obvious he won the election, shock, this time around everyone is a lot more guarded can he win? no idea but seriously if he did I might see my investments take another nose dive...is he good for the US or the world? 

 

Does lightning ever strike twice?

 

Of course it does!

 

Happens all the time.

 

And so, when Trump gets re-elected, it will be for the same reason that caused his election the first time.

America hasn't changed.

Therefore, why expect a different outcome this time?

 

 

 

[novacova]

On 1/15/2024 at 3:14 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

Why are you so interested in Trump?

I’m not.

Though the fearful Trump obsession is the result of the weak minded that are easily led by the propaganda of the media and politicians, plain and simple. No need to read into it any further.

[BigStar]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

with no serious attempt to take the issue further, compared to Trump’s ongoing straight out outrageous refusal to accept that he lost based on nothing, leading to January 6 etc. 

 

Hillary, though conceding, kept up her "stolen" narrative and called for an end to the Electoral College, attempting to overthrow the system and deprive smaller states of due representation. Stacey Abrams, too, started up a special-interest group, and engaged in serious lawfare attempting to undermine respect for election results, alleging discriminatory and suppressive election practices in Georgia. She finally lost. Both were and are "outrageous."

 

I doubt you're sufficiently knowledgeable to discuss Jan 6, but you may give some examples of articles you've read, such as the brief one I linked for you, in the interest of having an objective, informed opinion, explaining why Jan 6 wasn't that big of a deal, as these things go, and how Trump didn't encourage any rioting, let alone insurrection. This is not to offend anyone's religion. I'd agree he didn't handle it well. Often he doesn't act in his own best interests.

 

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I note too that, after your Afghanistan article, Biden did of course leave, though no doubt the withdrawal was botched.

 

Finally did and of course botched it, as you note. As Obama said, "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f--- things up."

 

And so not surprisingly his own botching basically led to the Ukraine-Russia war, otherwise preventable. Lot of leftist propagandists support him (paid by lobbyists, I assume) as well as Repub militarists; you may be onboard. Nonetheless, sentiment seems gradually turning against perpetual warfare, as people are gradually realizing the costs of supporting the military-industrialist complex Eisenhower warned about. Trump seems in agreement, one of his appealing points. 

 

6 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I notice many who talk of Biden’s failings look in terms of poll numbers rather than what he has achieved – possibly because of the clearly strong economy.

 

The poll numbers merely reflect the results of his real failings on the economy. Why would you, an objective observer, wish to deny the facts?

 

The question is, why are voters so down on the economy if the Biden administration is constantly touting its economic record? The simple answer: Facts are stubborn things.

   --Failure of “Bidenomics” Is Rankling Americans

 

We could come up with a list of his other failures and power grabs, some found illegal.

 

6 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

To seemingly describe Biden and the Democrats as lying thugs, who have to be addressed by utilising the rule of law, seems incredibly ironic.  

 

In view of their pretensions to support democracy while undermining it--very much so. Told a big lie the other day, and doubled down on it, with the blessing of controlled media, about drownings on the border. Biden Administration, Media Caught Lying After Blaming Recent Border Drownings On Texas. New report out says FinCen, like Bolsheviks, asked banks to troll through their customers' private, protected speech for terms the regime thinks hostile.

 

This could be a very long list. But the best example you're familiar with would be the Jan 6 "insurrection" lie constantly repeated for re-election purposes and used in lawfare, for example, the illegal removal of Trump from ballots. (BTW, that Colorado decision was laughable in its self-righteous pomposity, covering up the poor reasoning.)

 

You remind me of this covering for implicitly Dem-sanctioned rioting:

 

 

One of many.

 

As you can see even on the forum threads, reasoning is useless. Force and power are what they understand, period. It's come to that, so bring it on.

 

6 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Take two examples though,  January 6 and  the fake electors scheme,  and  his treatment of highly classified records. 

 

Again, you're merely echoing the party line. You may link to articles you've read that disagree with you on each point, if you've read any. As an article referenced above notes, partisan lawfare against Trump is running out of gas. 

 

 

[Prubangboy]

7 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Question:  Do you ever find your writing style to be a bit dense and stilted?  Or, is it just me?

 

Of course, when one deigns to publish their work on a public site, such as TV, then one should not only expect critique, but one should also be willing to meticulously find fault in what one writes, even before submitting it for public viewing.

 

Not sure whether or not you might agree.

 

I am now considering offering my services to writers on TV as a writing consultant, either for free if the budding writer is poor, or for donations to a good cause if the aspirant is rich.

 

Hit me up, if you would take me up on this one-time offer.

 

I am sure that we can cut your verbosity down to size, quite easily, in order to make it more readable, not only to you, but to everyone else.

 

Don't delay, is my best advice to you....

 

Best regards,

Gamma

 

 

 

Pot, meet kettle.

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, Prubangboy said:

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Glad to know you, Sir!

Have you ever tried Brillo?

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

23 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

Hillary, though conceding, kept up her "stolen" narrative and called for an end to the Electoral College, attempting to overthrow the system and deprive smaller states of due representation. Stacey Abrams, too, started up a special-interest group, and engaged in serious lawfare attempting to undermine respect for election results, alleging discriminatory and suppressive election practices in Georgia. She finally lost. Both were and are "outrageous."

 

I doubt you're sufficiently knowledgeable to discuss Jan 6, but you may give some examples of articles you've read, such as the brief one I linked for you, in the interest of having an objective, informed opinion, explaining why Jan 6 wasn't that big of a deal, as these things go, and how Trump didn't encourage any rioting, let alone insurrection. This is not to offend anyone's religion. I'd agree he didn't handle it well. Often he doesn't act in his own best interests.

 

 

Finally did and of course botched it, as you note. As Obama said, "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f--- things up."

 

And so not surprisingly his own botching basically led to the Ukraine-Russia war, otherwise preventable. Lot of leftist propagandists support him (paid by lobbyists, I assume) as well as Repub militarists; you may be onboard. Nonetheless, sentiment seems gradually turning against perpetual warfare, as people are gradually realizing the costs of supporting the military-industrialist complex Eisenhower warned about. Trump seems in agreement, one of his appealing points. 

 

 

The poll numbers merely reflect the results of his real failings on the economy. Why would you, an objective observer, wish to deny the facts?

 

The question is, why are voters so down on the economy if the Biden administration is constantly touting its economic record? The simple answer: Facts are stubborn things.

   --Failure of “Bidenomics” Is Rankling Americans

 

We could come up with a list of his other failures and power grabs, some found illegal.

 

 

In view of their pretensions to support democracy while undermining it--very much so. Told a big lie the other day, and doubled down on it, with the blessing of controlled media, about drownings on the border. Biden Administration, Media Caught Lying After Blaming Recent Border Drownings On Texas. New report out says FinCen, like Bolsheviks, asked banks to troll through their customers' private, protected speech for terms the regime thinks hostile.

 

This could be a very long list. But the best example you're familiar with would be the Jan 6 "insurrection" lie constantly repeated for re-election purposes and used in lawfare, for example, the illegal removal of Trump from ballots. (BTW, that Colorado decision was laughable in its self-righteous pomposity, covering up the poor reasoning.)

 

You remind me of this covering for implicitly Dem-sanctioned rioting:

 

 

One of many.

 

As you can see even on the forum threads, reasoning is useless. Force and power are what they understand, period. It's come to that, so bring it on.

 

 

Again, you're merely echoing the party line. You may link to articles you've read that disagree with you on each point, if you've read any. As an article referenced above notes, partisan lawfare against Trump is running out of gas. 

 

 

Hey I was going to write a long reply as I strongly disagree with these old chestnuts you bring up - comparing a couple of comments from Hillary, who is not Biden, to Trump's over the topness, linking Afghanistan to Ukraine somehow, comparing a totally unrelated riot in Kenosha which Biden had nothing to do with, to January 6 - at the Capitol no less - which Trump was clearly responsible for etc etc.

I will give you the economic point that inflation is a killer for all sorts of reasons and workers, including myself in Australia, aren't impressed with being told they can't have wages keeping pace or it causes more inflation - always workers pay in the end. But that's world wide and if you think Trump would have had lower inflation or been a friend of the worker with higher wages then that's fine. 

I could wax lyrical further about this but ...