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

[Azadina]

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.

It is a completely fair hypothetical. You're simply getting hung up on the word "shoot", because with that you realize how completely nonsensical your defenses of Trumps phrase are. You didn't get stuck on the word "hurt" in Trumps words. Why do you keep getting stuck on the "shoot" part? It's not relevant to your reasons why Trumps words were fine. Those same "justifications" work for the phrase I made for your view. The key elements are right where they're supposed to, and are identical.

We already went over establishing that shoot is hurt. However, we never established what sort of hurt Trump talked of. It could be anything, even shoot. So, once more: would it be a non violence promoting phrase for a Democrat to say? Yes or no.

[Malaky]

It is a completely fair hypothetical. You're simply getting hung up on the word "shoot", because with that you realize how completely nonsensical your defenses of Trumps phrase are. You didn't get stuck on the word "hurt" in Trumps words. Why do you keep getting stuck on the "shoot" part?

Because shooting someone is many magnitudes worse as an action than "hurting", so your example isn't fair to what Trump actually said.
As I said, you've jumped the shark.
Address him fairly and we'll talk.

For example, if a democrat where to say something like "please escort the protesting Trumpster out but try not to hurt him while doing so, though if it happens you'll receive defense" I'd be perfectly equally fine with this democrat as I am with Trump saying the same.

We already went over establishing that shoot is hurt. However, we never established what sort of hurt Trump talked of. It could be anything, even shoot.

And even dropping a nuclear bomb on him. That's "hurt" too, right?
Please.

[Skulltaker]

A situation in which the populace no longer see themselves as everyone still being people sharing a common country, but rather groups divided in factions believing to have nothing in common with the other side, seen as nothing but enemies to be distrusted.

That's what a "civil like fracture" is like.

To pretend that a warning against this sort of situation was "Trump THREATENED to DECLARE CIVIL WAR if he's impeached! What a monster!" is either bad faith or an astounding lack of comprehension of words and context.

There is no such thing as a 'civil war like' fracture. You either have parts of the population fighting (one or many) other parts, in which case you have a civil war on your hand, or you have a country splitting up, in which case you have a secession. If you merely have people throwing rocks at each other and beating each other up, it's called riots. Parts of the population not talking to the other because they don't appear to have any common ground at all is called a fantasy, because no such thing exists.

But what should I expect of someone who doesn't know the difference inbetween 'force' and 'violence'? You're just like Trump, every time you open your mouth you dig yourself into the shit a little deeper. Signal in case you find oil, maybe Trump will dig you out.

- - - Updated - - -

And even dropping a nuclear bomb on him. That's "hurt" too, right?
Please.

I'm wondering what has to go wrong in someone's upbringing or life to get to the place you're at right now. I'd love to do a case study on you.

[Malaky]

There is no such thing as a 'civil war like' fracture. You either have parts of the population fighting (one or many) other parts, in which case you have a civil war on your hand, or you have a country splitting up, in which case you have a secession. If you merely have people throwing rocks at each other and beating each other up, it's called riots. Parts of the population not talking to the other because they don't appear to have any common ground at all is called a fantasy, because no such thing exists.

Disagree, there absolutely can be something as a "civil war like" fracture in a country.
You can have divide even without the actual bracing of weapons and killing each other, which would be actual civil war, which is exactly why in this case the term is prefaced by the "like".

Once the divide gets big enough that people no longer look at each other in terms of people but of "enemies and allies", there you have it.

Parts of the population not talking to the other because they don't appear to have any common ground at all is called a fantasy, because no such thing exists.

Agree, but tell that to certain dems who refuse to do exactly that because the "other" happens to be republican or conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm wondering what has to go wrong in someone's upbringing or life to get to the place you're at right now. I'd love to do a case study on you.

Mmh? I was exposing the flaw in Adrielle's logic. What is it that you find so outrageous?

[Skulltaker]

Disagree, there absolutely can be something as a "civil war like" fracture in a country.

You can have divide even without the actual bracing of weapons and killing each other, which would be actual civil war, which is exactly why in this case the term is prefaced by the "like".

Once the divide gets big enough that people no longer look at each other in terms of people but of "enemies and allies", there you have it.



Agree, but tell that to certain dems who refuse to do exactly that because the "other" happens to be republican or conservative.

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. There is nothing 'civil war like' in what you describe, because a civil war is people actually fighting each other to the death. It's like saying "Orange juice is Coca Cola like because they are both liquids!", it'S nothing but bullshit.

Mmh? I was exposing the flaw in Adrielle's logic. What is it that you find so outrageous?

Your complete inability to form a cohesive thought or argument. Also, not outrageous in the slightest, just sad.

[Malaky]

because a civil war is people actually fighting each other to the death.

Which is why there's a "-like" involved here.
Civil wars are born from deep divides within a population which then escalates into the two sides becoming fully separated and starting using weapons against one another.
What Trump warned about was the growth of something like that type of divide.

It's like you never heard people using examples that are only partially related to the subject. Bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

Your complete inability to form a cohesive thought or argument. Also, not outrageous in the slightest, just sad.

Just because you can't follow logic doesn't mean logic isn't there, my friend.

According to Adrielle, Trump's lacking of specification about what "hurt" meant could mean anything (his words), and so I brought that example to point out the flaw.

Get it now?

[Azadina]

Because shooting someone is many magnitudes worse as an action than "hurting", so your example isn't fair to what Trump actually said.
As I said, you've jumped the shark.
Address him fairly and we'll talk.

For example, if a democrat where to say something like "please escort the protesting Trumpster out but try not to hurt him while doing so, though if it happens you'll receive defense" I'd be perfectly equally fine with this democrat as I am with Trump saying the same.



And even dropping a nuclear bomb on him. That's "hurt" too, right?
Please.

As said, your own justifications work against your hand waving here. Specifically the part where you presumed someone to possibly becoming hurt due to violently resisting the removal. You're allowed self defence, with guns if need be in united 2A of America, aren't you?

Thought so. So why do you still have problems with it?

[Malaky]

As said, your own justifications work against your hand waving here. Specifically the part where you presumed someone to possibly becoming hurt due to violently resisting the removal. You're allowed self defence, with guns if need be in united 2A of America, aren't you?

Thought so. So why do you still have problems with it?

If the protester resisted the removal so violently that the use of guns became a legitimate response to the threat he posed, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
If he had a knife, for example, and threatened to attack and kill someone, getting shot in response wouldn't see anything wrong from me.

But again, this has nothing to do with the context and meaning of Trump's words in that situation, so...

[Skulltaker]

Which is why there's a "-like" involved here.
Civil wars are born from deep divides within a population which then escalates into the two sides becoming fully separated and starting using weapons against one another.

It's like you never heard people using examples that are only partially related to the subject. Bizarre.

Like implies a likeness. There is no likeness there. And I've heard people do that all the time, and they've been idiots with no grasp of the matter they are trying to discuss whatsoever. "Others do it so it's fine!" is one of the dumbest arguments you can possibly make, and it doesn't help your cause in the slightest.

Yes, civil wars are usually the result of such a divide, but you're equating the outcome with reason. The divide in itself is not a civil war, and it isn't civil war like. There is no such thing as 'civil war like', it's a stupid expression by someone who's either not willing or not smart enough to use the appropriate terminology. What you are describing is a form of civil unrest. If it escalates, civil war is a possibility. Or riots. Or secession. But there is no such thing as 'civil war like' situations. You either have a civil war on your hands, or you don't. The term doesn't leave much space for interpretation.

[Malaky]

Like implies a likeness. There is no likeness there. And I've heard people do that all the time, and they've been idiots with no grasp of the matter they are trying to discuss whatsoever. "Others do it so it's fine!" is one of the dumbest arguments you can possibly make, and it doesn't help your cause in the slightest.

Yes, civil wars are usually the result of such a divide, but you're equating the outcome with reason. The divide in itself is not a civil war, and it isn't civil war like. There is no such thing as 'civil war like', it's a stupid expression by someone who's either not willing or not smart enough to use the appropriate terminology. What you are describing is a form of civil unrest. If it escalates, civil war is a possibility. Or riots. Or secession. But there is no such thing as 'civil war like' situations. You either have a civil war on your hands, or you don't. The term doesn't leave much space for interpretation.

Again, disagree. Divide is divide, which is what Trump was being cautionary about.
War-like divide, Civil-War divide, Secession-like divide can all exist even in the absence of actual civil war, war, and secession.

I think you're getting lost in terminologies while missing the point of that message.

[Skulltaker]

Just because you can't follow logic doesn't mean logic isn't there, my friend.

According to Adrielle, Trump's lacking of specification about what "hurt" meant could mean anything (his words), and so I brought that example to point out the flaw.

Get it now?

No, you didn't. What you did was make up an impossibly overexaggerated statement equating the use of a nuclear weapon to that of a gun, without pointing out anything. Arguments and discussions are held within the confines of reason. Looking at the US, someone using a gun on someone who disagrees with him happens relatively often, and is well within the boundaries of a real scenario. How often has the president nuked a single citizen? Or used the military in any capacity to kill a US citizen, for that matter?

Also, it's really rich of you to speak of logic while constantly making illogical arguments and keep making up words like 'civil war like' to try to save your argument.

What happened to your inability to distinguish in between force and violence, btw? Am I getting an answer your last bullshit any time soon, or have you run away from that argument aswell?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, disagree. Divide is divide, which is what Trump was being cautionary about.
War-like divide, Civil-War divide, Secession-like divide can all exist even in the absence of actual civil war, war, and secession.

I think you're getting lost in terminologies while missing the point of that message.

You could disagree with the Pythagorean theorem, that wouldn't give any credence your theories. No, they can not. These divides can be the reason that lead up to civil war, war or secession, but again, you're equating the reason with the outcome, which is simply wrong.

Of course, since you like citations so much, I am sure you can make a few examples of where what you're describing is or was the case?

[Malaky]

No, you didn't. What you did was make up an impossibly overexaggerated statement equating the use of a nuclear weapon to that of a gun

Just like Adrielle made an impossibly overexxagerated statement equating a protester getting hurt while being escorted out with being shot with a gun. Glad you got it.

These divides can be the reason that lead up to civil war, war or secession

Ooh, see?
Trump was warning about exactly this, these "divides" that can be the reasons that lead up to civil war. That was his message.

[Azadina]

If the protester resisted the removal so violently that the use of guns became a legitimate response to the threat he posed, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
If he had a knife, for example, and threatened to attack and kill someone, getting shot in response wouldn't see anything wrong from me.

But again, this has nothing to do with the context and meaning of Trump's words in that situation, so...

So what objections do you continue to have with the wording? Here we seem to agree that such occurrence is possible, and completely legal.

So why would you have a problem with democrat president to instruct his/her followers to try and not to shoot?

[Malaky]

So what objections do you continue to have with the wording? Here we seem to agree that such occurrence is possible, and completely legal.
So why would you have a problem with democrat president to instruct his/her followers to try and not to shoot?

First of all "try not to shoot" implies that lower levels of violence aren't on the radar or perhaps even acceptable by this president.

Also the supposition that you should consider shooting as your first line of response is highly questionable and puts the moral character of this president on serious doubt.

Instead "try not to hurt" excludes all levels, it's the standard of minimal necessary force. Trump does fine with this one.

Also because you added a "and if you do you'll get full pardon!" which Trump never said.... so you know, that little sprinkling of exaggeration you added.

[Azadina]

Because "try not to shoot" implies that lower levels of violence than this aren't on the radar or even acceptable by this president.

"Try not to hurt" excludes all levels.

Also because you added a "and if you do you'll get full pardon!" which Trump never said.... so you know, that little sprinkling of lies and exaggerations you added.

The pardon part isn't a lie or an exaggeration at all. Trump never specified what form his idea of legal defense will take. He has pardoned buddies before. So tell me, why can't I use pardon straight up, instead of vague wording?

[Ausr]

Too bad no one in the White House or hell, even Congress, has the balls to do what's right with his mental status.

[Malaky]

The pardon part isn't a lie or an exaggeration at all. Trump never specified what form his idea of legal defense will take. He has pardoned buddies before. So tell me, why can't I use pardon straight up, instead of vague wording?

Haha, I see you're still playing this game of "he didn't specify so I can assume the worst and pretend that's what he said!".

Nah, stick to the words. He said defense, which means legal defense in court, not pardon. Otherwise he would've said pardon.

[Azadina]

Haha, I see you're still playing this game of "he didn't specify so I can assume the worst and pretend that's what he said!".

Nah, stick to the words. He said defense, which means legal defense in court, not pardon. Otherwise he would've said pardon.

Stop lying. I never once said that he said it. I asked YOU about a hypothetical democrat president saying those words, and whether it would be ok. Afterall, it contains the exact words you've so far used to justify Trumps phrase.

[Malaky]

Stop lying. I never once said that he said it.

Oh, so you admit your hypothetical has nothing to do with Trump's words then. Very well.

I asked YOU about a hypothetical democrat president saying those words, and whether it would be ok. Afterall, it contains the exact words you've so far used to justify Trumps phrase.

A president taking a stance of "shooting" as the base line of defense?
A president telling his guards that even if they went and shot a guy they'd be pardoned?
I'd condemn him, obviously.

[Azadina]

Oh, so you admit your hypothetical has nothing to do with Trump's words then. Very well.



A president taking a stance of "shooting" as the base line of defense?
A president telling his guards that even if they went and shot a guy they'd be pardoned?
I'd condemn him, obviously.

Except it has everything to do with his phrase. The only difference is that the wording in my hypothetical is precise. Trumps version doesn't specify what he means. It doesn't exclude the wording I used. So, it could be identical, we can't know.