"I don't stand by anything." Donald Trump on Obama wire tap claims

[PC2]

There's no ad hominem. When it comes to the issue of illegal immigration you are woefully uninformed. Your own statements have proven this to be true.

What we can rule out, however, is that you have any clue what you're talking about.

This specifically is ad hominem. Your reaction is directed against the person(myself) rather than the argument itself.

[Jeezy911]

You forgot the best part of the whole interview:

DONALD TRUMP: And I think actually I have been very consistent. You know, it is very funny when the fake media goes out, which we call the mainstream media, which sometimes I must say is you.

JOHN DICKERSON: You mean me personally or…?

TRUMP: Eh… your show. I love your show. I call it “Deface the Nation,” but, you know, your show is sometimes not exactly correct.


Watching these media elitists squirm is the best, most entertaining president of all time.

[Edge-]

Watching these media elitists squirm is the best, most entertaining president of all time.

I must have missed when the "media elitists" started squirming. I mean cringing? Sure. But not squirming because of this shit.

[Noxx79]

You forgot the best part of the whole interview:

DONALD TRUMP: And I think actually I have been very consistent. You know, it is very funny when the fake media goes out, which we call the mainstream media, which sometimes I must say is you.

JOHN DICKERSON: You mean me personally or…?

TRUMP: Eh… your show. I love your show. I call it “Deface the Nation,” but, you know, your show is sometimes not exactly correct.


Watching these media elitists squirm is the best, most entertaining president of all time.

Such a wild imagination. Who is the one who abruptly cut off the interview after they brought up something THEMSELVES that they didn't want to talk about?

[Breccia]

How is that squirming?

You call that squirming? THIS is squirming!

Trump Abruptly Ends CBS Interview After Wiretap Question

WASHINGTON — President Trump cut short a television interview that was aired on Monday after being asked about his unsubstantiated claim that President Barack Obama had spied on him, reviving an incendiary charge even as his re-election campaign released its first advertisement taking aim at “fake news.”

In the interview, which was timed to place a capstone on his first 100 days, Mr. Trump resurfaced allegations made in a bombshell Twitter post from early March that Mr. Obama had tapped his phones in Trump Tower, saying that while the former president had been “very nice to me,” the two have had “difficulties.”

“You saw what happened with surveillance,” Mr. Trump said, declining to elaborate. Asked by John Dickerson, the host of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “What does that mean, sir?” Mr. Trump said: “You can figure that out yourself.”

When Mr. Dickerson asked whether Mr. Trump stood by his characterization of Mr. Obama as “sick and bad,” the president appeared to become agitated and said, “You can take it any way you want.”

“I have my own opinions,” Mr. Trump continued, as Mr. Dickerson tried in vain to ask him for an explanation. “You can have your own opinions.”

The president then ended the interview, saying, “O.K., it’s enough.”

The testy exchange, which was filmed on Saturday, was at odds with the image of competence and message discipline that White House officials have labored to show over the past week, as they have tried to demonstrate progress around Mr. Trump’s 100-day mark, a time frame the president rejected as ridiculous but has gone out of his way to frame as an unparalleled success.

Started a new thread with that because I'm an idiot. But, yeah, saying "I was right" then not only refusing to say how, but fleeing the studio when asked, that is squirming. He has the best squirms. He squirms better than the generals. Only he can squirm this. He's going to squirm so much, we're going to get tired of the squirming. 15% squirm rate, everyone will have squirm coverage, bomb the squirm out of them, smurf smurf snarf snarf I AM GROOT!

[NYC17]

This specifically is ad hominem. Your reaction is directed against the person(myself) rather than the argument itself.

Your argument itself, in the way you have presented it, is devoid of any actual knowledge. It's simply not ad hominem.

Basic stuff.

[Jeezy911]

I must have missed when the "media elitists" started squirming. I mean cringing? Sure. But not squirming because of this shit.

This is also why his supporters like myself, like him still. He goes into hostile territory and basically verbally punches Dickerson in the face. It was great.

[araine]

Why is your president unable to speak more than 8 words per sentence?

Thats probably the posting limit on Twitter. really cant be any other reason

[Edge-]

This is also why his supporters like myself, like him still. He goes into hostile territory and basically verbally punches Dickerson in the face. It was great.

I think you're mistaking Trump cowardly scurrying away from an interview the second he's faced with a moderately difficult question with "punches Dickerson in the face".

It's alright, I know Trump, and also some of his supporters, have issues with facts and reality.

If he wanted to go to hostile territory, he'd have showed up to the White House Correspondents Dinner. Instead, he retreated to his "safe space" to hold a campaign rally for 2020. Because he needs to be surrounded by cheering supporters lest his delicate ego end up limp and flaccid.

[NYC17]

This is also why his supporters like myself, like him still. He goes into hostile territory and basically verbally punches Dickerson in the face. It was great.

That's what you consider a "verbal punch to the face"?

Haha...

[PC2]

Your argument itself, in the way you have presented it, is devoid of any actual knowledge. It's simply not ad hominem.

Basic stuff.

Yes your reactions were ad hominem.

There's no ad hominem. When it comes to the issue of illegal immigration you are woefully uninformed. Your own statements have proven this to be true.

What we can rule out, however, is that you have any clue what you're talking about.

In all these cases you are directing your criticism to me as a person, not attacking the argument itself.

[jackofwind]

He has the best words, why on earth would he need more than 8

Maybe the truth that all the rest of us don't understand is that there are in fact only 8 best words in the English language.

What a revelation that would be.

[NYC17]

Yes your reactions were ad hominem.




In all these cases you are directing your criticism to me as a person, not attacking the argument itself.

It's YOUR argument. YOUR argument, employed by YOU, appears to be devoid of any actual knowledge or understanding. The "argument", such as it is, doesn't need to be attacked. It's lack of substance makes it unworthy of such a task. It wasn't attacked so much as it was spotlighted for its nothingness.

If you feel so tied to argument that you are personally offended by its criticism, when the criticism correctly highlights the lack of knowledge behind it, you should probably make better arguments. Or you know, keep whining about ad hominem when you don't seem to know what even that is...

[PC2]

It's YOUR argument. YOUR argument, employed by YOU, appears to be devoid of any actual knowledge or understanding. The "argument", such as it is, doesn't need to be attacked. It's lack of substance makes it unworthy of such a task.

If you feel so tied to argument that you are personally offended by its criticism, when the criticism correctly highlights the lack of knowledge behind it, you should probably make better arguments. Or you know, keep whining about ad hominem when you don't seem to know what even that is...

Again you have only focused on me as a person or on ignoring the argument, you are not attacking the argument or policy position itself. My original statement was that we cant rule out further measures against illegals. If you had said "yes we can rule out further measures because the current policy is working satisfactorily", that would be an example of an argument that is not directed at the person.

[NYC17]

Again you have only focused on me as a person or on ignoring the argument, you are not attacking the argument or policy position itself. My original statement was that we cant rule out further measures against illegals. If you had said "yes we can rule out further measures because the current policy is working satisfactorily", that would be an example of an argument that is not directed at the person.

Your original statement, as oblivious as it was, is not the issue. The issue was your statement about how it's agricultural, and how you'll just "pay less for produce" in the meantime. Employers hiring illegals extends far beyond agriculture.

But go on about how your argument is somehow worth a shit...

Wait, is that ad hominem? Since I clearly said "your argument"? Or do you just reserve that for when you wish to distract from the fact that you, quite obviously, have no idea what you're talking about. And how the argument you employ reinforces the idea that your argument, and therefore you, must be devoid of actual knowledge.

This game is fun but you seriously need some more time in the minors.

[PC2]

Your original statement, as oblivious as it was, is not the issue. The issue was your statement about how it's agricultural, and how you'll just "pay less for produce" in the meantime. Employers hiring illegals extends far beyond agriculture.

But go on about how your argument is somehow worth a shit...

Wait, is that ad hominem? Since I clearly said "your argument"? Or do you just reserve that for when you wish to distract from the fact that you, quite obviously, have no idea what you're talking about. And how the argument you employ reinforces the idea that your argument, and therefore you, must be devoid of actual knowledge.

This game is fun but you seriously need some more time in the minors.

This is the first time you even brought up your issue which was with the agriculture statement.

Yes I understand the effect of illegals goes beyond agriculture. My point was not ment to be comprehensive, but to address the biggest area that they influence.

[NYC17]

This is the first time you even brought up your issue which was with the agriculture statement.

Yes I understand the effect of illegals goes beyond agriculture, but my point was not ment to be exhaustive, but to address the biggest area that they influence.

Once again, your argument doesn't address anything. It hilariously states some vague notion about "other measures not being ruled out". It's a disjointed reply, which highlights your general lack of knowledge by focusing on "the biggest area".

Tee hee.

[PC2]

Once again, your argument doesn't address anything. It hilariously states some vague notion about "other measures not being ruled out". It's a disjointed reply, which highlights your general lack of knowledge by focusing on "the biggest area".

Tee hee.

Here is the original post you replied to:

We cant rule out further measures against illegals. Nothing is off the table just because its 2017. But until then I guess I'll just have to keep paying a bit less in the produce aisle.

What I'm addressing is the 10 million illegals and the measures we can use to identify them. Aside from agricultural audits we can also increase the breadth of checks that happen at various points that already exists, such as interstate checkpoints. Or also requiring proof of citizenship as a routine part of vehicle violations if that isn't already happening in all states.