Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

History, Human Psychology, & Sociology would be a great start for this long and arduous lesson.

I have a degree in history.

I agree they'd be a good start. For instance, in the practice of any of those fields, if you want to make a claim, you need evidence to back that claim up.

So I repeat; where's your evidence? You claimed corruption is evenly distributed throughout humanity independent of ideology; that no group may be more or less corrupt than any other group. Show me your data sets. I'd even be willing to accept partial data given the ridiculous scope on that claim.

You've provided jack shit.

I simply don't have the time to hash it out on this messageboard, as much as I would like to do so.

If you don't have evidence, you don't have an argument. You just have your imagination.

Which we have no reason to treat seriously.

[Lenonis]

On the contrary, it's lazy to believe otherwise. Disrespectful to our history.

There's isn't an eyeroll emoji big enough. False equivalencies are a crystal clear example of lazy thinking of people unwilling or unable to grasp nuance.

It is plainly obvious that it is entremely unlikely that both parties are equally corrupt. They have core beliefs and opinions that lend themselves to different behavior -- and thus it's an entirely lazy opt out to just declare them equal especially when there is mountains of data to show that isn't the case.

Nothing disrespectful about history -- and that's a stupid statement anyway since we are talking about now not 100 years ago. It is, however, disrespectful to reality to just make up these assertions because you can't be bothered to look deeper.

[BronzeCondor]

If you don't have evidence, you don't have an argument. You just have your imagination.

Which we have no reason to treat seriously.

That's fine, lol

There's isn't an eyeroll emoji big enough. False equivalencies are a crystal clear example of lazy thinking of people unwilling or unable to grasp nuance.

It is plainly obvious that it is entremely unlikely that both parties are equally corrupt. They have core beliefs and opinions that lend themselves to different behavior -- and thus it's an entirely lazy opt out to just declare them equal especially when there is mountains of data to show that isn't the case.

Nothing disrespectful about history -- and that's a stupid statement anyway since we are talking about now not 100 years ago. It is, however, disrespectful to reality to just make up these assertions because you can't be bothered to look deeper.

You entitled to believe that.

Corruption exists, whether the data is there to prove it or not. You can't expect a corrupt system to prosecute itself.

[Endus]

I can't provide this to you.

Then you can't know what you claim to know, and your position is just a wild baseless hypothesis you can't back up and never could.

You made it up and demanded we accept it, based on nothing.

That's simply never going to happen. If I demanded you believe I have a real live actual unicorn in my backyard, but I can't take a picture and show you because my phone camera's broken, would you believe me anyway? Or would you demand I at least provide a photo?

[BronzeCondor]

Then you can't know what you claim to know, and your position is just a wild baseless hypothesis you can't back up and never could.

You made it up and demanded we accept it, based on nothing.

That's simply never going to happen. If I demanded you believe I have a real live actual unicorn in my backyard, but I can't take a picture and show you because my phone camera's broken, would you believe me anyway? Or would you demand I at least provide a photo?

It's not a baseless hypothesis, and you don't have to accept anything. I can simply ask you questions and hope that you'll answer them.

Do you believe the US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

Oh I didn't address your history post. I'm glad you have a degree in history because it's vital for our society. Human history is full of examples of corruption (from Rome to the Catholic Church to the Chinese Empires of old), and I'm not going to hash them all out.

Regarding US history, here's a pretty famous one I'm sure you're familiar with:

Tammany Hall -

https://allthatsinteresting.com/boss-tweed-tammany-hall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamman...19th%20century.

[Santti]

"Bolsonaro" confirmed hardest word in the English language.

Twitter doesn't able to process the word either, for the link doesn't work.

[Belize]

Do you not believe Democrats engage in corruption?

Not to the degree Rs do, which is the point.

Your attempts to equate the two are blatant, and off-base

[Machismo]

It's not a baseless hypothesis, and you don't have to accept anything. I can simply ask you questions and hope that you'll answer them.

Do you believe the US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

It is baseless by definition, and you even admitted you are ignoring the available data to come to your conclusion. You made the claim that they are both equally corrupt. That burden falls entirely on you. Your choice to continue asking deflecting questions merely proves what everyone has been saying the entire time about you.

The data disagrees with you. Do you have any data to show that will back your claim that they are equally corrupt? If not, then you are agreeing that your claim is baseless. So, either provide that data, or admit they are right about your claim being baseless.

Your choice.

[BronzeCondor]

Not to the degree Rs do, which is the point.

Your attempts to equate the two are blatant, and off-base

Do you believe the current US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

It is baseless by definition, and you even admitted you are ignoring the available data to come to your conclusion. You made the claim that they are both equally corrupt. That burden falls entirely on you. Your choice to continue asking deflecting questions merely proves what everyone has been saying the entire time about you.

The data disagrees with you. Do you have any data to show that will back your claim that they are equally corrupt? If not, then you are agreeing that your claim is baseless. So, either provide that data, or admit they are right about your claim being baseless.

Your choice.

If you look at it from purely a humanistic perspective, you don't need raw data to validate that money & power have a corruptive effect on humans. That is not baseless.

If you want to emphasize the important of data (in terms of historical outcomes), sure, there's human history with abundant examples.

[Machismo]

Do you believe the current US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that they are both equally corrupt? Yes, or no?

[Belize]

Do you believe the current US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

Do you think rat poison and sodas are both harmful to your health?

[BronzeCondor]

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that they are both equally corrupt? Yes, or no?

This is a deflection, you can simply answer the question if you wish, or choose not to.

I don't have the type of evidence you want to show that they are both equally corrupt.

[Endus]

It's not a baseless hypothesis, and you don't have to accept anything. I can simply ask you questions and hope that you'll answer them.

Do you believe the US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

This ignores proportionality, which is the entire point of the argument you're contesting. The answer is "yes", but that answer is meaningless in terms of comparison between groups.

When one group engages in corruption on scales wildly out of proportion with another, it isn't a "gotcha" to point out that there's some level of corruption in the group with vastly lower corruption. It's just an attempt to deflect.

Oh I didn't address your history post. I'm glad you have a degree in history because it's vital for our society. Human history is full of examples of corruption (from Rome to the Catholic Church to the Chinese Empires of old), and I'm not going to hash them all out.

And history also strongly demonstrates that there is no ubiquity to corruption; it is not evenly distributed and homogenous throughout history.

That's what you willfully refuse to acknowledge.

[BronzeCondor]

Do you think rat poison and sodas are both harmful to your health?

Can you answer the question directly?

Do you believe the current US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

[Machismo]

Do you believe the current US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?



If you look at it from purely a humanistic perspective, you don't need data to validate that money & power have a corruptive effect on humans. That is not baseless.

If you want to emphasize the important of data, sure, there's human history with abundant examples.

Thank you for confirming your claim is utterly baseless, and can be summarily dismissed.

This is the problem when you try and "both sides" shit in order to shill for fascists and Nazis, people are going to call you on it. "Power corrupts, so everyone is equally corrupt!!!"

Sorry, bro.

[Endus]

This is a deflection, you can simply answer the question if you wish, or choose not to.

Claiming they're deflecting from your deflection, back to the original point, is certainly a take.

Not a good take.

I don't have the type of evidence you want to show that they are both equally corrupt.

Then you can't make that claim. Any attempt to do so is a lie, and you know you're lying.

[Lenonis]

If you look at it from purely a humanistic perspective, you don't need raw data to validate that money & power have a corruptive effect on humans. That is not baseless.

So now you are extending this nonsense to claim all people with money and power are all equally corrupt?

Cause again, there is mountains of data to prove you wrong.

Your mistake isn't showing that power can corrupt but rather insisting that power will corrupt equally. Without fail.

[Machismo]

Can you answer the question directly?

Do you believe the current US Democratic Party engages in corruption? Yes or No?

Can you answer directly? Do you have evidence, yes or no?

Yes, the Democrats do have corruption in their party. No, it's not to the degree of corruption of the Republicans. The data backs it up. You are objectively wrong.

[BronzeCondor]

This ignores proportionality, which is the entire point of the argument you're contesting. The answer is "yes", but that answer is meaningless in terms of comparison between groups.

When one group engages in corruption on scales wildly out of proportion with another, it isn't a "gotcha" to point out that there's some level of corruption in the group with vastly lower corruption. It's just an attempt to deflect.



And history also strongly demonstrates that there is no ubiquity to corruption; it is not evenly distributed and homogenous throughout history.

That's what you willfully refuse to acknowledge.

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt. There is no gotcha, it's just an acknowledgement that this problem transcends party lines and to shed away the notion that being less corrupt is somehow more acceptable.

[Lenonis]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt. There is no gotcha, it's just an acknowledgement that this problem transcends party lines and to shed away the notion that being less corrupt is somehow more acceptable.

Move them goalposts!