Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[cubby]

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.

The details and facts seem to just be getting worse for Rudi.

The DoJ is looking to bring on what they refer to as a Special Master, who is a third party brought in to review all potentially privileged documents. It's what they did with Cohen.

[Breccia]

You asked me to "explain the legislative proposals, the ones Trump is talking about"

I did.

And I can't help but notice you haven't answered. Because it still sounds like you didn't even look. And this response sounds like admission you're not going to, either. There is a vast difference between "I don't know" and "I looked, but it's not in there" and of course "I looked and found it".

It's okay to admit you didn't bother looking. Granted, it's admission of cowardice, but it's allowed. Or, you could, you know...look. Surely you're not afraid of what you won't find? It can't possibly be as difficult as explaining why you're not even bothering to look half a dozen times. Or to pretend you answered when you didn't. "I don't know what Trump meant" isn't an answer that makes sense in this context. You're not being asked to judge Trump's state of mind. You're being asked to back up Trump's objective statement of fact. It's true, or it isn't. You're choosing ignorance. Ignorance is not an answer. Ignorance is the aversion to answers. And it's unacceptable. Do you think that, when a student says "I don't know" on a test question, I give them full points for telling the truth? Because no, I don't, that's stupid.

Honestly, you'd get a lot better results if you stopped clutching your pearls, accusing me of forgetting, and asking for a week when you could have resolved this six times by now...and actually tried to find the answer. Because all you're doing, over and over, is trying to come up with reasons not to even look, and saying you've answered when you've only admitted you don't have answers.

Seriously, this could have been over long ago. Trump made an objective statement of fact, is it really that hard to say "No, this statement was false"?

[DarkTZeratul]

Trump made an objective statement of fact, is it really that hard to say "No, this statement was false"?

The thing is, though, he DIDN'T make an objective statement of fact. Trump made a vague allusion to something that you both admitted you didn't know what he meant, and you're now badgering him for an answer over an explanation I half-remembered from six months ago that I openly admitted may not even be accurate because I couldn't be bothered to confirm it.

[Fugus]

Guys, you know who Dang is, could you please quit feeding him. I really dislike having to just skip pages at a time because people keep feeding the pigeons and enabling them to keep shitting on the board.....

[Breccia]

you're now badgering him for an answer

Well, I was actually hoping he'd provide an answer. Do you know how hard it is to find a Trump supporter willing to answer an objective question? It's like they want to somehow support Trump, while also pretending Trump can say things like "the election was stolen and I have proof" and it somehow doesn't apply to them.

There's a word for Trump supporters (including Trump voters) who are not Trump defenders. The word is "coward". I'm giving @tehdang every possible chance here. It's concerning he hasn't taken at least one.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys, you know who Dang is, could you please quit feeding him

Yeah, you're right.

[Felya]

Guys, you know who Dang is, could you please quit feeding him. I really dislike having to just skip pages at a time because people keep feeding the pigeons and enabling them to keep shitting on the board.....

What is... Someone who complained that it’s okay to hate on Trump voters, around the same time Trump was campaigning on democrats being arsonist who are trying to destroy America... for 500?

[starlord]

if you don't want threads derailed, stop dogpiling & browbeating people so they have to answer 3-5 posts for every one of theirs.

[Felya]

if you don't want threads derailed, stop dogpiling & browbeating people so they have to answer 3-5 posts for every one of theirs.

If you don’t want a thread derailed, stop posting shit like this and respond to someone on topic, that isn’t being piled on... that’s what I do...

[Draco-Onis]

https://www.nola.com/gambit/news/the...cef6bfaef.html



Huckabay, being Martha Huckaby, president of the Women's Republican Club of New Orleans.

What is up with Republicans just like, openly and explicitly voicing their support for slavery?

This is the age of Trumpism they no longer feel the need to hide their racism, that's why anyone not channeling him won't do they are done being subtle.

[Felya]

Ted Cruz: the booger on the lip of democracy:

[Glorious Leader]

https://www.nola.com/gambit/news/the...cef6bfaef.html



Huckabay, being Martha Huckaby, president of the Women's Republican Club of New Orleans.

What is up with Republicans just like, openly and explicitly voicing their support for slavery?

They were in power for 4 years. It has emboldened them.

[Felya]

This is the age of Trumpism they no longer feel the need to hide their racism, that's why anyone not channeling him won't do they are done being subtle.

Hide their racism? Their entire ideology is currently being driven by the idea that they can’t be racist in public. That’s what cancel culture is all about...

[Zeth Hawkins]

And they're not "censoring" anything.

When the government openly pressures a company to censor someone, and that company complies, reasonable people would disagree with you.

[Machismo]

When the government openly pressures a company to censor someone, and that company complies, reasonable people would disagree with you.

It's not the government, it's a private entity.

It's no different than you kicking someone out of your house for calling your wife bad names.

[Breccia]

It's not the government, it's a private entity.

Actually, the hypocrisy on display is it is the Republican Party openly discussing punishment for the ban -- the completely contractually allowed ban. In other words, Facebook and Twitter were well within their rights to ban Trump for breaking their rules, and the Republican Party is seeking to punish them for it. I'm sure our friend @Zeth Hawkins will clarify that's just as bad, if not worse, any minute now.

[Edge-]

When the government openly pressures a company to censor someone, and that company complies, reasonable people would disagree with you.

Facebook is a private company. What government pressured them to ban Trump?

This sounds like fantasy.

[Machismo]

Actually, the hypocrisy on display is it is the Republican Party openly discussing punishment for the ban -- the completely contractually allowed ban. In other words, Facebook and Twitter were well within their rights to ban Trump for breaking their rules, and the Republican Party is seeking to punish them for it. I'm sure our friend @Zeth Hawkins will clarify that's just as bad, if not worse, any minute now.

Well, of course... the GOP despises the First Amendment rights of business owners to associate with whom they want.

I just call it fascism.

[tehdang]

I did.

(Various accusations of cowardice, being afraid, rejection of answers, judgements of state of mind, unacceptability, accusations of stupidity, etc)

I linked to your two questions, restated my two answers, and yet more dithering from you.

Stop being a coward. Come back to me next week with questions you'd actually like answered. You ask me to explain legislative proposals that Trump didn't specify, sorry but my answer is the same: "I'm in the dark as to the proposals Trump is talking about, therefore I can't explain them to you." You show by your behavior that you will twist questions into new questions with allowable answers.

So I'm giving you this stunning opportunity. Think it over this weekend to what you actually want answered. I will forgive and forget your past attempts to badger, goad, lie, and spew utter bullshit to accuse me of bad faith. Go think over your new question. I happen to be a generous person, so I'll give you some helpful tips that I see you going towards:

"In your opinion, is Trump lying when he said there were legislative approvals mandated by the US Constitution pertaining to election fraud?"
"Do you think Trump's claim that it exists has merit, to the best of your knowledge"

And in my last bit of update, I will quote out the questions asked and answered. These were not quoted in the prior post, so it might be useful to the thread to hear the questions again.

Preamble: I asked you a direct question in the previous post. Could you answer it please?
Q: why don't you explain to us the Legislative approvals, the ones Trump is talking about which he says did not happen.
A: I’m also in the dark to what he’s referring to here.

Q: Could you find the part of the Constitution that Trump is talking about?
A: I don’t know of anything in the constitution that he is likely to refer to.

Reminder for the peanut gallery that I can't explain unspecified "Legislative approvals" that were never identified. If you ask me to find something that doesn't exist, or is too vague to identify, then the logical response is that I can't find it. Or, I don't know of anything there that he's referencing

I don't want to be overhasty with you. Maybe you're quick and find out what Trump was referring to, if indeed he was referring to anything specific, and update me, demanding an explanation. All is good! Group hug!

if you don't want threads derailed, stop dogpiling & browbeating people so they have to answer 3-5 posts for every one of theirs.

I had like 19 notifications at some part of the day. Oy vey. This user seems VERY interested in answers, so I feel compelled to give him some time to think over some better questions (that may have the better answers he's searching for)! He's a little bit of the badgering ~"You didn't give me an answer I liked, therefore it doesn't answer the question I asked" "The only reason you can't answer this third, fourth, and fifth question I'm asking, is COWARDICE."

I have some familiarity with the style of argumentation. 2 questions becomes 5, after the answers to the first two. My time is rather limited. I'd rather allow him a space to consider if he wants to know my opinion on if Trump is lying, or whether he actually has a particular constitutional text/amendment in mind, or my opinion on what the constitution mandates on a certain electoral topic. The answers spawning 2 new questions for every answer, together with ample filler like accusations of bad faith, do distract from the thread and fill pages.

[Fugus]

Remember, don’t feed the pigeons.

[Bodakane]

When the government openly pressures a company to censor someone, and that company complies, reasonable people would disagree with you.

Agreed. And when that happens lets talk about it, but since it hasn't, its a stupid and bullshit point to make.

For fucks sake Trump was the government when he was "censored".