At one point, is this possible to discuss the POTUS mental age seriously ?

[draynay]

Yes, yes, Trump is the least violent person that wants to shoot migrants in the legs, bigly innocence.

[Orbitus]

I was about to respond again, but then just stopped when I realized that no matter what Trump says, you'll always sprinkle and reword it and change it and interpret it in whatever nightmarish way you want while sprinkling the result with your own lies and assumptions.

No longer interested, go your own way.
None of those sentences are calls to violence, and if that's the best you got now I know Trump's innocent on that side.

It doesn't matter, if we had fucking video of Trump raping that girl when she was 12, or killed someone on 5th avenue, you would do EVERYTHING in your fucking power to deny reality. This is why NO ONE thinks of you as credible.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Na. It will be interesting to see if anyone does understand what I meant. I do not think that will happen, considering the level of hatred for Trump here. I could say what it is, but then it would be bushed aside and dismissed as Trump supporting propaganda. I would rather wait and see if anyone does.

You know, the correct train of thought for "nobody understands the point I'm making" is "maybe I should try and explain it differently". Not "lolz libs r so stoopid, they dont see how clever i em".

[Kaleredar]

I was about to respond again, but then just stopped when I realized that no matter what Trump says, you'll always sprinkle and reword it and change it and interpret it in whatever nightmarish way you want while sprinkling the result with your own lies and assumptions.

No longer interested, go your own way.
None of those sentences are calls to violence, and if that's the best you got now I know Trump's innocent on that side.

Trump said he would defend people if they hurt protesters. Fact. You glom on to the first part of the sentence, and ignore the second half that directly contradicts the first. Doesn't change the fact that Trump said both parts.

Trump said that a nonviolent protestor that interrupted one of his rallies should have been "roughed up." Fact. You seemed to have dropped responding to this point entirely. Doesn't mean I'll let you get away with it.

Trump said he wanted to punch someone in the face. Fact. You seem to have hit some cognitive dissonance on this one; you wont accept that Trump would have lied about the situation, despite the press who observed and security personnel who dealt with the protestor saying he was not being violent. He very unequivocally said he'd like to punch a man who was actually a peaceful protestor in the face.

These are facts. You seem content to ignore them. Your hypocrisy on this matter speaks volumes to your character, or lack thereof.

[Malaky]

Trump said he would defend people if they hurt protesters. Fact.

See what I mean?
Why do you assume that "hurting protesters" can only be an intentional act of evil?

Again, you're blinded by your hatred for the man.

I won't bother responding to you further on this subject. You're simply not being objective, or even addressing his words in good faith.

[Orbitus]

See what I mean?
Why do you assume that "hurting protesters" can only be an intentional act of evil?

Again, you're blinded by your hatred for the man.

I won't bother responding to you further on this subject. You're simply not being objective, or even addressing his words in good faith.

Because we have a first amendment and the right to peaceably assemble. To intentionally assault and remove protesters, is the very definition of an act of evil. And for someone whining about objectivity, you sure aren't that objective yourself.

[Malaky]

Because we have a first amendment and the right to peaceably assemble. To intentionally assault and remove protesters, is the very definition of an act of evil.

When did I ever say otherwise? I think you missed the meaning of my post, specifically the "only" part.

A trump protester getting hurt doesn't necessarily mean it was intentional, thus you can't equate "hurt protester" with an intentional act of evil by default.

[Skulltaker]

I was about to respond again, but then just stopped when I realized that no matter what Trump says, you'll always sprinkle and reword it and change it and interpret it in whatever nightmarish way you want while sprinkling the result with your own lies and assumptions.

No longer interested, go your own way.
None of those sentences are calls to violence, and if that's the best you got now I know Trump's innocent on that side.

Ah, so now you're just giving up trying to defend your ridiculous point and try to feign superiority. Fucking hilarious. This is why no one invites Trumpsters to discussions, they simply lack the tools to have an actual discourse. They just throw their filth around, and as soon as they are proven wrong, they go 'you know what, you can't understand what I'm trying to get at anyway. You're so blinded by hatred that you cannot see the facts." You people are so pathetic I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or pity you.

[Azadina]

All shooting is hurting, but not all hurting is shooting.
You're making this false equivalence in order to build a strawman of Trump's words, I suggest you try addressing the point honestly instead.

So it is a form of hurt then? Glad we agree. Then there's no problem with using the word in a hypothetical. Let's continue:

What do you think "try not to" means?
Hint: if something happens even though you weren't trying to do it, that's exactly what unintentional is for.

You keep falling back on the try not to wording to excuse the whole phrase. But, for some reason you took a problem with the hypothetical I asked you about. Let's look at it again:

So, let me see if I got this right:

If a Democrat president were to tell his/her followers "get the Trumpkins out of here, try not to shoot them. If you do, you'll have pardons waiting, don't worry about it"

That's cool in your books? You'd defend it as asking people not to be violent, correct?

Well damn. There's the SAME try not to. It would seem like I got all of the important details right in the hypothetical. The exact thing you've used to justify his words as inconsequential, and having nothing to do with promoting violence. Read the hypothetical again. Your favourite words try not to, are right there, right where they're supposed to be. What's lacking is you defending that hypothetical phrase as nothing wrong. Why is that?

I believe we already handled the hurt part, so about the defense swapped for word pardon? Well, again, considering Trumps behavior with issuing pardons, and his wording having been about defending a possible offender in court if they were to hurt someone, we can already see it's a metaphor. He's not going to play someone's lawyer in court, is he? Didn't think so. So his defense will mean something other than that. What will it be? That's up for interpretation, and based on his past behavior, I chose to interpret one possibility being a pardon. So, pardon it is in the hypothetical.

Now that we've discussed your grievances with different words, but exact same content, perhaps you can answer the hypothetical again, without trying to be hypocritical.

[Mormolyce]

I would only worry about once he starts tweeting with only emojis.

I'm pretty sure the only reason that hasn't happened is that he doesn't know how to put an emoji in a tweet.

[draynay]

I'm pretty sure the only reason that hasn't happened is that he doesn't know how to put an emoji in a tweet.

What a loser, the pope even figured out how.

[Mormolyce]

I don't approve responding to VIOLENT protesters with violence

When were the protesters violent? This is the occasion in question:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ly-guilty-plea

A neo-Nazi was shoving a black protester. He later pled guilty to the charge so that is not in dispute. How was the protester violent?

In fact, said neo-Nazi tried to use the fact he was acting under orders from Trump in his defense:

A federal lawsuit over whether Donald Trump incited violence against protesters at his March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville continues. Heimbach, one of the defendants in that lawsuit, argued in court filings that he had done nothing wrong, and that he had also “acted pursuant to the directives and requests of Donald J Trump” and his campaign and that “any liability must be shifted to one or both of them”. Citing the now president’s reaction to protesters at his campaign event – “” – a federal judge ruled in April that the lawsuit could proceed. “It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get ’em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Judge David J Hale wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ly-guilty-plea

Man, seems like the reality is very different from the made up scenario you invented in your head, doesn't it?

[Themius]

See what I mean?
Why do you assume that "hurting protesters" can only be an intentional act of evil?

Again, you're blinded by your hatred for the man.

I won't bother responding to you further on this subject. You're simply not being objective, or even addressing his words in good faith.

Remember when trump celebrated an elected official BODY SLAMMING a reporter?



Or is this video a lie? Are those words non-existant?

[Masark]

In fact, said neo-Nazi tried to use the fact he was acting under orders from Trump in his defense:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ly-guilty-plea

Man, seems like the reality is very different from the made up scenario you invented in your head, doesn't it?

Yeah, but that was an ultra far left illegitimate OBAMA judge.

[Teleros]

(I just thought Trump was an imbecile. Now I actually think he have dementia problem. How an adult being can write a letter that short that repeat itself so much, with such juvenile expressions ? (two exclamations marks, FFS…)

The fact that the letter is public should be reason enough to doubt that the real audience is Erdogan. This reads like something intended for the audience back in the USA - "to CNN/Fox/et al, by way of the President of the Republic of Turkey" in other words.

As to Trump himself? Definitely 135+ IQ and mentally still not far off his prime.

"B-b-but he sounds so juvenile!"

Yes, he sounds juvenile. Think about how classic demagoguery works for just a minute: a smart guy dumbing down his message for the masses, and using rhetoric rather than dialectic to appeal to their hearts rather than their heads. He's a master persuader - or salesman, if you prefer. He also made huge sums of money repeatedly - dumb rich people have a habit of spending huge sums, and generally end up (or their kids end up) as dumb poor people. Once... yeah okay, people do get lucky sometimes - but not repeatedly.

[Thekri]

The fact that the letter is public should be reason enough to doubt that the real audience is Erdogan. This reads like something intended for the audience back in the USA - "to CNN/Fox/et al, by way of the President of the Republic of Turkey" in other words.

As to Trump himself? Definitely 135+ IQ and mentally still not far off his prime.

"B-b-but he sounds so juvenile!"

Yes, he sounds juvenile. Think about how classic demagoguery works for just a minute: a smart guy dumbing down his message for the masses, and using rhetoric rather than dialectic to appeal to their hearts rather than their heads. He's a master persuader - or salesman, if you prefer. He also made huge sums of money repeatedly - dumb rich people have a habit of spending huge sums, and generally end up (or their kids end up) as dumb poor people. Once... yeah okay, people do get lucky sometimes - but not repeatedly.

The "Smart Guy playing Dumb Guy to look like a Smart Guy" bit didn't work in 2015, it sure as hell won't work in 2019. Trump is a demagogue, sure. He is good at emotions, sure. In fact emotions is the only thing he is good at. But he is an idiot. A complete and total idiot when it comes to logic, reason, and planning. His success depends on sheer audacity, which is a surprisingly effective method, but it is not a tactic.

He sounds juvenile because is the way he thinks and acts. He has no cunning, just impulses. Trump on his own can't get anywhere, he is only president because he has a mass of willing accomplices willing to build a cult around him, while siphoning off the proceeds.

[Teleros]

The "Smart Guy playing Dumb Guy to look like a Smart Guy" bit didn't work in 2015, it sure as hell won't work in 2019.

He's not playing dumb to look smart. He's playing dumb to win votes.

As to the rest, you forget the whole business empire he had, for starters. Plus... just try and think logically through your own statements, and you ought to realise how little sense they make. You don't make hundreds of millions in the New York property market if you're a "total idiot" when it comes to logic, reason and planning. I don't know what else to tell you other than that. You just don't.

So, take his observable success in business, politics and so on, plus his low-brow language and so on. What is the most reasonable explanation for all this?

1. He's a buffoon propped up by [insert name here].
2. He's a smart demagogue.
3. He's literally (literally!) the luckiest buffoon in history.
4. Some other reason, w/e it is.

The "smart demagogue" option is, to me at least, the most reasonable by far. Doesn't matter if you like him or not - personally I'd rather he be a little more Augusto Pinochet and a little less of a negotiator, but that's just me - that's besides the point.

[wunksta]

As to Trump himself? Definitely 135+ IQ and mentally still not far off his prime.

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought?

Stable genius.

[Malaky]

That's up for interpretation, and based on his past behavior, I chose to interpret one possibility being a pardon. So, pardon it is in the hypothetical.

I see no indication in those words that he meant a pardon, so that's where our opinions diverge.
Defense means just that, judicial defense, meaning making sure the guy would get a proper lawyer to defend himself.

As for the rest of your post, you keep failing at the basis. Equating hurting with shooting is a false equivalence. You don't get to do that.

Try making a hypothetical that is actually fair to Trump's words there, instead of a strawman that completely jumps the shark.

[Orbitus]

The fact that the letter is public should be reason enough to doubt that the real audience is Erdogan. This reads like something intended for the audience back in the USA - "to CNN/Fox/et al, by way of the President of the Republic of Turkey" in other words.

As to Trump himself? Definitely 135+ IQ and mentally still not far off his prime.

"B-b-but he sounds so juvenile!"

Yes, he sounds juvenile. Think about how classic demagoguery works for just a minute: a smart guy dumbing down his message for the masses, and using rhetoric rather than dialectic to appeal to their hearts rather than their heads. He's a master persuader - or salesman, if you prefer. He also made huge sums of money repeatedly - dumb rich people have a habit of spending huge sums, and generally end up (or their kids end up) as dumb poor people. Once... yeah okay, people do get lucky sometimes - but not repeatedly.

Trump doesn't have ANYWHERE NEAR a 135 IQ. He literally sounds like a fucking 4th grader, he repeats himself constantly, says mistakes all the time like us having a fucking airforce during the Revolutionary War like a tard.