Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

it’s insane

Taking money from gullible idiots is not insane. It's a scam. That's very sane.

[tehdang]

That's why I was asking you. Trump's statement cites nothing, and it conflicts with publicly-available facts. There is no "insider information" available, Trump said it on a public statement.



Trump lies all the time about everything. There's no point in asking him.

EDIT: Wait, why would I talk to Trump about your opinion? I was asking (a) about something objective and (b) Trump doesn't know who you are. Or care. Don't tell me you're waiting for Trump to say something, before you have an opinion? That doesn't make sense, considering...



Hey, at least you answered. You've seen my challenges get ignored by the cowardly rabid fanbase around here, because they're afraid to say "Trump is lying" or "Trump is making shit up".

I mean you could try asking Trump what he means. You called on me for “ why don't you explain to us the Legislative approvals, the ones Trump is talking about “ when I am just as in the dark as you are. If you do find out specifically what he’s referring to, I’m all ears.

[Breccia]

I mean you could try asking Trump what he means.

Trump lies all the time about everything. I'm asking you because we need a fresh perspective.

Or, did you just admit you were afraid to look without Trump's permission? Because that sounds like cowardice. I don't think you meant to publicly admit cowardice, did you?

[tehdang]

But that's just stupid. States have certification processes for a reason. There's nothing in the Constitution that tells them how to do it. Is there?

Hey @tehdang you're back on. Could you find the part of the Constitution that Trump is talking about? The part that requires state legislatures to vote on the results? I looked, I didn't see it. Maybe you could find it? This is no longer "I don't know what he means" by the way, you're going to have to go on the record to say "Trump was telling the truth, here it is" or "Trump was lying" this time.

Or, I guess you could refuse to answer. Granted, you know what that means you admit about yourself, but I'll allow it.

I don’t know of anything in the constitution that he is likely to refer to.

Remember, I’m not a MMO-Champ house slave. I don’t obligate myself to answer just because some anonymous rando on the internet deigns to ask me. So let’s be a little more ... generous ... in the way you write “refuses to answer” and we’ll (perhaps) get along just fine.

[Breccia]

I don’t know of anything in the constitution that he is likely to refer to.

That sounds like you didn't look. Were you afraid to look? It's okay, you can admit you were too afraid to look.

[tehdang]

Trump lies all the time about everything. I'm asking you because we need a fresh perspective.

Or, did you just admit you were afraid to look without Trump's permission? Because that sounds like cowardice. I don't think you meant to publicly admit cowardice, did you?

Asked and answered as far as I know. I don’t possess special insight to what’s being referred to, and by your own admission, neither do you.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds like you didn't look. Were you afraid to look? It's okay, you can admit you were too afraid to look.

In all seriousness, did you look front to back just because Trump mentioned it? I really hope you didn’t, but this latest post makes me unsure.

[Felya]

Asked and answered as far as I know. I don’t possess special insight to what’s being referred to, and by your own admission, neither do you.

No, he is saying Trump is lying because one cannot be found. While you are claiming that you don’t know if he is lying, because you can’t find anything to confirm what Trump is talking about.

[Breccia]

Asked and answered

No it wasn't. I asked you about a very specific Constitutional provision this time. I asked you to look. Were you afraid to look? It sounds like you were afraid to look, but I'll let you clarify.

Or, you know, you could look. I know @Felya and I already did. Maybe you can find it? Or, you could say "It's not there, Trump was making shit up". That's fair.

[tehdang]

No, he is saying Trump is lying because one cannot be found. While you are claiming that you don’t know if he is lying, because you can’t find anything to confirm what Trump is talking about.

He is free to make that claim. Indeed, that presumption. I only answered “why don't you explain to us the Legislative approvals, the ones Trump is talking about.” I hope he can promise me that he’ll update me if Trump narrows it down for him, since he confesses that he’s in the dark.

[Felya]

He is free to make that claim. Indeed, that presumption. I only answered “why don't you explain to us the Legislative approvals, the ones Trump is talking about.” I hope he can promise me that he’ll update me if Trump narrows it down for him, since he confesses that he’s in the dark.

Narrows down what? There nothing to narrow down... he is absolutely wrong... this isn’t a mater of having a charitable interpretation. He is wrong or as I call it, lying... because he is literally generating funds off being wrong.

[tehdang]

No it wasn't. I asked you about a very specific Constitutional provision this time. I asked you to look. Were you afraid to look? It sounds like you were afraid to look, but I'll let you clarify.

Or, you know, you could look. I know @Felya and I already did. Maybe you can find it? Or, you could say "It's not there, Trump was making shit up". That's fair.

Haha I see your real question was something along the lines of “Trump made a vague claim about some provision being present in the constitution that does X. Is it your opinion that such a text exists that does X within the constitution?”

Asking me what Trump was referring to is a bad question. How am I to know? Maybe he thinks it’s in the commerce clause? Maybe he thinks it’s the duties of Congress in the 20th amendment? Maybe the pillow guy came in and said it’s present in the preamble. You answered you are in the dark, and I echo that.

[Breccia]

He is free to make that claim.

Yes, but we're asking you if that claim has merit. Trump was making a statement about objective fact. This was not an opinion, it was a statement about the Constitution and what it said. You have so far refused to answer without Trump's permission. You're not scared to look, are you? Surely you can look. I mean, most of us did during the election.

- - - Updated - - -

“ Is it your opinion ”

I asked you to look. You haven't. Why not? Trump's statement was about an objective fact. This isn't an opinion, this is "the Constitution says XXX". You don't need Trump's permission to look in the Constitution for an objective fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Twitter fires warning shot, and by timing alone I can't help but say "this can't be coincidence".

[Benggaul]

Twitter fires warning shot, and by timing alone I can't help but say "this can't be coincidence".

Meh.

Hateful cunt Ann Coulter is still running rampant on there but I got permabanned for calling her out on it. If they want to continue relying on "algorithms" to do their work for them it's really not going to solve anything. Doubly so when, after being reviewed by a human, they'll still let Blue Checkmarks slide 9 times out of 10.

Twitter did some things right, like labeling false information as such and giving Trump the boot, but stuff like this isn't going to solve anything--not that anyone should expect them to.

[Breccia]

stuff like this isn't going to solve anything

My unfounded suspicion is, they are saying this now, to justify kicking him off forever. And hopefully kicking people off for quoting him. We'll find out. Again, I find the timing impossible to be a coincidence.

[Benggaul]

My unfounded suspicion is, they are saying this now, to justify kicking him off forever. And hopefully kicking people off for quoting him. We'll find out. Again, I find the timing impossible to be a coincidence.

Twitter already permabanned Trump. That happened a couple days after the insurrection. Or am I misinterpreting who "him" is?

EDIT: Ohhh, wait, are you saying this is a sort of after-the-fact justification for permabanning him? Because I think they already did that too. I don't think they'll kick people for quoting him, though. They'd have to dump millions of users.

[Breccia]

Twitter already permabanned Trump. That happened a couple days after the insurrection. Or am I misinterpreting who "him" is?

No.

And I think this is a before-the-fact reason for future bannings, more than after-the-fact, but you could be right too.

- - - Updated - - -

While we wait for @tehdang to finish a look through the Constitution (seriously it's less work than pretending it's an opinion and waiting for Trump to give it to you, it's in there or it isn't) we have a non-anonymous source who overheard Giuliani ask for a smear campaign against Biden.



That phone call was 3 days before Trump called Ukraine to blackmail them, for which he was impeached. Trump may have tried to hide that evidence, but Giuliani called on speakerphone like a dick.

We also have Giuliani begging Trump for money for legal bills and Bidens' DoJ looking at having a neutral third party to review subpoena'd documents which as @cubby keeps saying is the smart and ethical way this stuff gets done.

[Breccia]

The only thing--

Yeah yeah yeah, you I and anyone else who isn't a Trump supporter already looked and didn't see anything. That's why I'm asking @tehdang to find what Trump is talking about, or to say they looked but it isn't in there, or to admit they are afraid to look. That third option is the default, by the way, even if @tehdang hadn't already basically accepted that a couple time so far.

I mean, this was an objective statement Trump made. "I can't give my opinion without Trump's consent" is just nonsense. Not something a genuine poster on these forums would say at all.

[Breccia]

They just don’t need to because they take the word of Donnie for it.

Normally, yes.

But @tehdang asked me to ask Trump. He didn't say "I will take Trump's word for it" for a reason I'll let you decide on your own.

So, no, that's not the excuse. Besides, he doesn't need an excuse. He can just, you know, look. You and I both did.

[Breccia]

We have more on Trump's FB ban. Turns out, Trump told the FB review people thingy that his murderous insurrectionists were "law-abiding citizens".

Trump was initially suspended indefinitely over two posts on the day of the riot, one a video where he repeated the false claim that the election had been stolen from him and a text post where he told rioters to “remember this day forever!”

The comments submitted to the oversight board claimed that that it was "stunningly clear that in his speech there was no call to insurrection, no incitement to violence, and no threat to public safety in any manner" and that there is a “total absence of any serious linkage between the Trump speech and the Capitol building incursion.”

Those arguments did not convince the board containing academics and former politicians, which ruled that keeping Trump on Facebook would have “created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible.”

Several of the individuals who participated in the storming of the Capitol, which led to five deaths, have said they were acting on Trump’s behalf, according to prosecutors.

- - - Updated - - -

Tbf, I didn’t look. I’ve known the information for a loooong time.

Well, "look" may not be super literal here. "Experts who have looked found there was nothing" is just as good. But again, yeah, your and my informed knowledge isn't the issue. It's a Trump supporter's at this point. Still an objective statement, it'd still be trivial to find out what you and I both already know. And probably a better result than admitting cowardice in public.

[tehdang]

Yes, but we're asking you if that claim has merit. Trump was making a statement about objective fact. This was not an opinion, it was a statement about the Constitution and what it said. You have so far refused to answer without Trump's permission. You're not scared to look, are you? Surely you can look. I mean, most of us did during the election.

Woah woah woah. You asked me to "explain the legislative proposals, the ones Trump is talking about" (https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53167539) and could I find the part of the Constitution Trump is talking about (https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53167602). Asked and answered. I don't know what Trump's referring to, so can't explain it to you. I don't know what part of the constitution Trump thinks justifies this.

After answering two of your questions, you should act like you give a damn about asking questions in hopes of answers, if you wish to keep my interest. I can save a lot of my valuable time if these are just pretexts to beratement: You don't remember the questions after asking them, and act perpetually aggrieved after receiving my answers on them. So I propose you come back next week. Instead of asking me what Trump's referring to and if I know which part of the constitution he's basing this allegation on, go ask the questions you really want answered. If it's my opinion on whether or not he's lying, go ask it. If it's my opinion on if he even had a clue what section of the constitution he was basing it on, go ask it. But, seriously bro, we're only two questions in and you're losing my respect.