***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

You realize you are asking for evidence that he did something while you have provided no evidence that he didn't? Other than speculation... same as me.

We both mentioned logical reasons for our argument. Like you stated, my argument requires giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Just because you don't want to give him that doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't valid.

PR is a logical reason to sign the act. So wouldn't it also be good PR to be against it being undermined?

Talk about ridiculous logic.

Dude miss me with this nonsense. Like piss off.

You are just trolling me.

So I have to prove a negative. This is a clear logical fallacy...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Ignorance

This is exact behavior Meth has warned you about. Warned you that you could get banned for it. Yet you continue it do it.

You might of clean up some of your act, put you are still the bad faith troll you have always been.

BTW, since I cited other instances of Trump publicly and privately criticizing the DOJ, and pointed out that Trump has done something similar in regards to them undermining the first step act, the fact that you couldn't fine examples, backs up my claim.

 

[plansb]

Delk if you think trump has any good intentions for anyone but himself and maybe other people like him (rich and white) then you are a ******* fool and a horrible judge of people. You really must be a ******* sucker. Or just greedy and a fraud.

 

[junglejim]

It’s pretty incredible that the republican platform has now become “don’t vote for Democrats or else things that are very much happening under our administration will happen *again*”

 

[dwalk31]

Dude miss me with this nonsense. Like piss off.

You are just trolling me.

So I have to prove a negative. This is a clear logical fallacy...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Ignorance

This is behavior Meth has warned you about. Warned you that you could get banned for it. Yet you continue it do it.

You might of clean up some of your act, put you are still the bad faith troll you have always been.

BTW, since I cited other instances of Trump publicly and privately criticizing the DOJ, and pointed out that Trump has done something similar in regards to them undermining the first step act, the fact that you couldn't fine examples, backs up my claim.

You are asking me to prove that he said something that he could have said privately.

How is that not trolling?

I cited him publicly supporting the First Step Act and publicly supporting a second step act.

You are handwaving that.

You are also handwaving that he could have refused to sign the legislation.

And saying it was just a PR stunt.

I stated a page ago you made a fair argument. You are refusing to acknowledge my reasoning as that and dismissing it as PR.

Me saying we can agree to disagree is not asking you to prove a negative.

 

[Mister Meaner]

Here we see a delk demonstrating just how zaddy likes it. Instead of taking everything like a man, a delk will bury its head to avoid the glaring truths being smacked into their respective kufi’s from all positions of logic and morality.

When the deed is done and the delk comes up for air, there’s an occasional payout. He doesn’t say there will be a reward every time, but he also DIDN’T say there wouldn’t. So there’s no reason not to have absolute blind faith, following the logic of the delks.

I especially enjoy when this delk calls it quits and defers/agrees to disagree.

 

[IATT]

Talk about ridiculous logic.

Ya boy comment on the cops that shot this unarmed black man right in front of his kids yet?

 

[IATT]

 

[plansb]

Impossible. Jerry is a good Christian. I give him the benefit of the doubt because of that.

 

[boris]

You realize you are asking for evidence that he did something while you have provided no evidence that he didn't? Other than speculation... same as me.

We both mentioned logical reasons for our argument. Like you stated, my argument requires giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Just because you don't want to give him that doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't valid.

PR is a logical reason to sign the act. So wouldn't it also be good PR to be against it being undermined?

Talk about ridiculous logic.

I'm not sure anyone agrees that your reason is logical. This is clearly why you avoid discussing anything of substance and instead rely on thoughts and feeling.

 

[IATT]

 

[nawghtyhare]

at them going at planned parenthood

 

[RustyShackleford]

You are asking me to prove that he said something that he could have said privately.

How is that not trolling?

I cited him publicly supporting the First Step Act and publicly supporting a second step act.

You are handwaving that.

You are also handwaving that he could have refused to sign the legislation.

And saying it was just a PR stunt.

I stated a page ago you made a fair argument. You are refusing to acknowledge my reasoning as that and dismissing it as PR.

Me saying we can agree to disagree is not asking you to prove a negative.

Your reasoning is clear ********. I don't have to respect it.

I told you to find any instance of him saying that, just like he did in the past for other subjects. You could not.

I said nothing of you proving he didn't say it privately. I said find something Google. Right here...

Google it then.

Then I listed instances that him disagreeing with the DOJ, instances we know to be true. Which are documented. So I told you that you saying he could have done it in private, goes against previous behavior, so it is hard to believe.

I asked you to find a documented case, like there is documented cases of others. You are moving the goalpost now by strawmanning my argument to make it seem like I brought up what he might of said in private. That claim was only peddled by you when you couldn't find a documents case like I asked.

Really Delk, piss off with this. You are just pulling me down the rabbit hole of bad faith buffoonery. All you are doing it throwing out fallacious arguments for me to deal with. Then clutching your pearls when I call them out.

 

[whywesteppin]

SANDMANN IS COMING!

Nicholas is looking VERY HANDSOME tonight!

 

[nawghtyhare]

this whole rnc thing
is like some parody skit
not a good one either like from in living color or chappelle show
but a trash one like from Saturday night live

 

[whywesteppin]

Holy ****, Sandmann has a ****** up lower jaw. Poor kid. Is he inbred?

Braces will only get him 10% of the way there for that gap. He's gonna need his whole face put in traction for years.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Just like Ninja, a racist troll always gets combative and makes bigger reaches when cornered.

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

Your reasoning is clear bull****. I don't have to respect it.

I told you to find any instance of him saying that, just like he did in the past for other subjects. You could not.

I said nothing of you proving he said it privately. I said find something Google. Right here...



Then I listed instances that him disagreeing with the DOJ, instances we know to be true. Which are documented. So I told you that you saying he could have done it in private, goes against previous behavior, so it is hard to believe.

I asked you to find a documented case, like there is documented cases of others. You are moving the goalpost now by strawmanning my argument to make it seem like I brought up what he might of said in private. That claim was only peddled by you when you couldn't find a documents case like I asked.

I don’t have to support my reasoning the way you ask me to.

Like I said, if he signed the act for a PR win Like you suggest, then why wouldn’t he be against it being undermined as a PR win as well?

Instead of following that clear logic you choose to believe he signed it for PR and then supports it being undermined...for *checks notes* bad PR?

Seems odd.

It all falls back to you refusing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. And I respect your decision to do that.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Holy ****, Sandmann has a ****ed up lower jaw. Poor kid. Is he inbred?

Braces will only get him 10% of the way there for that gap. He's gonna need his whole face put in traction for years.

Dude looks like he will grow up and become the type of man that watches his wife get smashed by the landscaper, while he sits in the corner.

 

[whywesteppin]

WOW WOW WOW

That should have been the keynote speech.

When Sandmann put the hat on at the end, WHOAAAAA!!!!

Up until now, I thought Sleepy Joe had a chance to win this November. But now it's clear that Trump will sweep all 538 electorates. Dems are done!

 

[dragicon]

Good news, trump isn’t even going to get 100,000 votes!

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don’t have to support my reasoning the way you ask me to.

Like I said, if he signed the act for a PR win Like you suggest, then why wouldn’t he be against it being undermined as a PR win as well?

Instead of following that clear logic you choose to believe he signed it for PR and then supports it being undermined...for *checks notes* bad PR?

Seems odd.

It all falls back to you refusing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. And I respect your decision to do that.

Dude miss me.

Your whole argument was in bad faith.

We done here.

 

[Belgium]

Fair enough.

I'll rephrase.

There is a reason to believe that he has asked them to stop since he signed the First Step Act into law and the actions by the DOJ are attempting to undermine it.

I don't accept your argument but I'll put it this way.

What does it tell you that Trump hasn't said one word about DOJ's undermining of the FSA while very publicly engaging in the activities listed below?
-Demanded favorable treatment for Roger Stone, convicted for 7 felonies he committed in service of Trump. The Senate Intel Committee's refutes Trump's sworn testimony to Mueller about his conversations with Stone, and Stone said he wouldn't turn on Trump while awaiting his eventual pardon.

-Praised Manafort for refusing to cooperate with DOJ, unlike "rat" Michael Cohen, and said a pardon was still on the table after Manafort pleaded guilty to a whole array of felonies and conspiring to obstruct the Mueller investigation in coordination with Russian intelligence.

-Suggested that 'flipping' should be outlawed

 

[plansb]

Cliffs on the sandman speech?

 

[IATT]