Mr Trump threatens the lives of former presidents

There are plenty of "limits," friend. Checks and balances. Statutes. The Constitution itself. Intelligence. Maturity. Experience. Mental health.

Trump isn't remotely crazy, and he's far brighter, more experienced, more educated and more mature than some of his constant, obviously political critics in the media.

None of them matter. Trump is going crazy and USA is not going to anything.

He's a total moron constantly getting stuff wrong that is taught to like 12 year old kids.

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/0nUSwK2H) > There are plenty of "limits," friend. Checks and balances. Statutes. The Constitution itself. Intelligence. Maturity. Experience. Mental health. > > Trump isn't remotely crazy, and he's far brighter, more experienced, more educated and more mature than some of his constant, obviously political critics in the media. None of them matter. Trump is going crazy and USA is not going to anything. He's a total moron constantly getting stuff wrong that is taught to like 12 year old kids.

notsoneutral

@tpr said ^

Trump likes to grab.

And when the victim is woman or a child he grabs her by a specific part of the anatomy.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/nHZnHTvp) > Trump likes to grab. And when the victim is woman or a child he grabs her by a specific part of the anatomy.

clousems

@Noflaps said ^

@Clousems again tries to make this about me.

So, @clousems, are you, too, actually going to argue that Iran's long-range ballistic missiles and stubborn over-enrichment must be for peaceful purposes? And that it's safe to just assume that? If so, wow -- do you think a lot of your fellow "conservatives" agree?

I guess I can't be sure. As I recall, Neville Chamberlain was a conservative an...

It is not feasible to engage in serious discussion with one who relies on fallacious reasoning at the expense of legitimate argument. Thats not to say that I refuse to argue with anyone who uses flawed logic—we all make mistakes—but it IS to say that your pattern of fallacies has become so constant and egregious that I see no potential value in discussion of politics with you. I get my straw man quotas in October filled by scary movie viewings.

I enjoy pointing out irony. That was my purpose in posting. Tpr, the lichess brigade of forum progressives, and yourself are all doing a fine job illustrating the ineptitude of our current president, so I didn’t feel the need to pile on.

As to “making it about you”, I’d argue that your pattern of wall-of-text fallacious reasoning and gish galloping has made every political topic for at least the past 12 months about you. You inevitably act as the president’s apologist whenever possible, repeating similar claims which usually don’t relate to the topic at hand and dominating the conversation with repeated applications of this technique. To illustrate this, the post you criticized did not dispute a single point you made—it merely pointed out a lack of self awareness.

PS: the accusation of fallacious logic is not a personal attack. It is nearly a “fallacy fallacy”, in which one individual assumes that everything the other says is wrong because the second individual employed a fallacy, but Id argue that there exists ample evidence of my past willingness to ignore (and sometimes, attempts to correct) the fallacies, absolving me of that particular rhetorical crime. If you are offended by my awareness of your mistakes, perhaps you should take greater care to avoid the mistakes?

PPS: I don’t think my post came off as “grumpy”. Snarky? Sarcastic? Snotty? Sure. But “grumpy”?

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/X1Uh7Gzo) > @Clousems again tries to make this about me. > > So, @clousems, are you, too, actually going to argue that Iran's long-range ballistic missiles and stubborn over-enrichment must be for peaceful purposes? And that it's safe to just assume that? If so, wow -- do you think a lot of your fellow "conservatives" agree? > > I guess I can't be sure. As I recall, Neville Chamberlain was a conservative an... It is not feasible to engage in serious discussion with one who relies on fallacious reasoning at the expense of legitimate argument. Thats not to say that I refuse to argue with anyone who uses flawed logic—we all make mistakes—but it IS to say that your pattern of fallacies has become so constant and egregious that I see no potential value in discussion of politics with you. I get my straw man quotas in October filled by scary movie viewings. I enjoy pointing out irony. That was my purpose in posting. Tpr, the lichess brigade of forum progressives, and yourself are all doing a fine job illustrating the ineptitude of our current president, so I didn’t feel the need to pile on. As to “making it about you”, I’d argue that your pattern of wall-of-text fallacious reasoning and gish galloping has made every political topic for at least the past 12 months about you. You inevitably act as the president’s apologist whenever possible, repeating similar claims which usually don’t relate to the topic at hand and dominating the conversation with repeated applications of this technique. To illustrate this, the post you criticized did not dispute a single point you made—it merely pointed out a lack of self awareness. PS: the accusation of fallacious logic is not a personal attack. It is nearly a “fallacy fallacy”, in which one individual assumes that everything the other says is wrong because the second individual employed a fallacy, but Id argue that there exists ample evidence of my past willingness to ignore (and sometimes, attempts to correct) the fallacies, absolving me of that particular rhetorical crime. If you are offended by my awareness of your mistakes, perhaps you should take greater care to avoid the mistakes? PPS: I don’t think my post came off as “grumpy”. Snarky? Sarcastic? Snotty? Sure. But “grumpy”?

Noflaps

edited

Accusing me, vaguely and repeatedly, of fallacious reasoning is not a personal attack? Oh. I see.

I don't see a lot about the actual topic of the thread, or many real, substantive responses to what I write, in your post, noble @clousems. But I guess I'm just not reading carefully enough or with enough real sophistication. Perhaps that's because none of my degrees were in the liberal arts. Drat!

Have a nice day.

Accusing me, vaguely and repeatedly, of fallacious reasoning is not a personal attack? Oh. I see. I don't see a lot about the actual topic of the thread, or many real, substantive responses to what I write, in your post, noble @clousems. But I guess I'm just not reading carefully enough or with enough real sophistication. Perhaps that's because none of my degrees were in the liberal arts. Drat! Have a nice day.

clousems

The QED to end all QEDs

greatJaromie

@garlic_bread_rucola said ^

Because the Albanians actually care about theit country. The Americans don't, Trump can just run it into the ground and they won't do a thing to stop him.

Albania is tiny & has a population smaller than many US cities. It's not some simple task to get hundreds of millions to coordinate on a single issue

About 70,000 albanians protested.

About 9 million Americans protested in March, 4 million in June 7 Million the previous October, and a massive protest is planned next week.
Difference is just a large crowd isnt going to end this kind of government & if it gets violent - thats exactly the kind of situation they want - so they can justify their usage of violence & repression and instigate a near civil war.

Americans want to sort this out politically to avoid that. I don't think you can fathom how destructive nationally & internationally an american civil war would be - so don't equate the politics of the largest economy & most powerful military on the globe with that of a small country the size of st. Loius, Missouri lmao empires function much differently than tiny countries that don't have vast amounts of people, foreign nations, internal intelligence agencies, massive media corps, huge amounts of weapons & trillions of dollars being flung around.

@garlic_bread_rucola said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xmyIl6ql) > Because the Albanians actually care about theit country. The Americans don't, Trump can just run it into the ground and they won't do a thing to stop him. Albania is tiny & has a population smaller than many US cities. It's not some simple task to get hundreds of millions to coordinate on a single issue About 70,000 albanians protested. About 9 million Americans protested in March, 4 million in June 7 Million the previous October, and a massive protest is planned next week. Difference is just a large crowd isnt going to end this kind of government & if it gets violent - thats exactly the kind of situation they want - so they can justify their usage of violence & repression and instigate a near civil war. Americans want to sort this out politically to avoid that. I don't think you can fathom how destructive nationally & internationally an american civil war would be - so don't equate the politics of the largest economy & most powerful military on the globe with that of a small country the size of st. Loius, Missouri lmao empires function much differently than tiny countries that don't have vast amounts of people, foreign nations, internal intelligence agencies, massive media corps, huge amounts of weapons & trillions of dollars being flung around.

Noflaps

edited

Violent protest in America is ludicrous.

And, unbeknownst to many innocents, many protestors (not all, of course) are being PAID to be there. It's at least a parttime job. One wonders: why PAY for disruptive protests? Who is trying to accomplish ... what?

I'm sure many will tell me I'm wrong. Oh, well.

It wouldn't feel like a normal week if I didn't confront some cocksure condemnation by precious true believers who can't imagine that they might be wrong.

Violent protest in America is ludicrous. And, unbeknownst to many innocents, many protestors (not all, of course) are being PAID to be there. It's at least a parttime job. One wonders: why PAY for disruptive protests? Who is trying to accomplish ... what? I'm sure many will tell me I'm wrong. Oh, well. It wouldn't feel like a normal week if I didn't confront some cocksure condemnation by precious true believers who can't imagine that they might be wrong.

notsoneutral

Many decades ago ...

The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration led by Republican staffers at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States, on November 22, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election, with the goal of shutting down the recount. After demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early.

The name referenced the protesters' corporate attire, described by Paul Gigot in an editorial for The Wall Street Journal as "50-year-old white lawyers with cell phones and Hermès ties", differentiating them from local citizens concerned about vote counting. Many of the demonstrators were Republican staffers. Both Roger Stone and Brad Blakeman take credit for managing the riot from a command post, although their accounts contradict each other. Republican New York representative John E. Sweeney gave the signal that started the riot, telling an aide to "shut it down".

Gigot, Paul A. (November 24, 2000). "Miami Heat: A burgher rebellion in Dade County". The Wall Street Journal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/11/15/its-insanity-how-brooks-brothers-riot-killed-recount-miami/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/11/sweeney-and-the-siege-of-miami.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/us/counting-vote-miami-dade-county-wild-day-miami-with-end-recounting-democrats.html

Many decades ago ... >The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration led by Republican staffers at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States, on November 22, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election, with the goal of shutting down the recount. After demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early. > >The name referenced the protesters' corporate attire, described by Paul Gigot in an editorial for The Wall Street Journal as "50-year-old white lawyers with cell phones and Hermès ties", differentiating them from local citizens concerned about vote counting. **Many of the demonstrators were Republican staffers**. Both Roger Stone and Brad Blakeman take credit for managing the riot from a command post, although their accounts contradict each other. **Republican New York representative John E. Sweeney gave the signal that started the riot**, telling an aide to "shut it down". Gigot, Paul A. (November 24, 2000). **"Miami Heat: A burgher rebellion in Dade County"**. The Wall Street Journal https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/11/15/its-insanity-how-brooks-brothers-riot-killed-recount-miami/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/11/sweeney-and-the-siege-of-miami.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/us/counting-vote-miami-dade-county-wild-day-miami-with-end-recounting-democrats.html

notsoneutral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

Noflaps

edited

When we understand something, we can generally put it into our own words.

By the way, it's 2026. And if you think "paid protestors" are unicorns that don't really exist in 2026, I can only chuckle. It isn't even particularly concealed and it's been well reported.

I'm not saying that all protestors are paid, of course, but apparently many are.

But I don't want you to just believe me -- we can all bother to look, if we take the time to do it. We can all check for ourselves.

Just because we haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Christopher Columbus, among many others, certainly taught us that.

When we understand something, we can generally put it into our own words. By the way, it's 2026. And if you think "paid protestors" are unicorns that don't really exist in 2026, I can only chuckle. It isn't even particularly concealed and it's been well reported. I'm not saying that all protestors are paid, of course, but apparently many are. But I don't want you to just believe me -- we can all bother to look, if we take the time to do it. We can all check for ourselves. Just because we haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Christopher Columbus, among many others, certainly taught us that.