Why Trump will lose.

How much time would you spend arguing if I insisted fish don't know how to swim?
That's why I don't need to defend Trump to this guy. He's not qualified to discuss issues, it just a matter of demanding sympathy for his hate.

Trump doesn't need defending from small children venting their tantrums and demanding somebody make them happy.
Trump is the opposite of what you perceive, and what you perceive has little to do with fact- it's once again, the hate that blinds the haters. Reality is just not with such people- fantasy rules, and they have no idea they are living a delusion.

Trump isn't perfect. Just way the hell ahead of anything the dems have, or can even conceive. That is good enough, because it is the best we can do at this particular time. As soon as Jesus returns and declares himself a democrat, things may change. They should pray for that, because they got nothing otherwise. Including a viable argument.

 

Sanders, with his antiestablishment credentials was a far better candidate than Biden or HRC in a race against Trump.
Why has the DNC worked so hard to rig their nomination process for such poor candidates? I just don't get it.

I suppose they will find a way to replace Biden with someone better, but only after alienating much of Sanders' base, and any replacement will be tarnished by the selection process.

I am used to thinking of the RP as The Stupid Party, but it may just be The Other Stupid Party.
Yes, that probably explains almost everything.

 

latest republican ad for 2020

 

Notice the tea party is nowhere to be found with Trump spending the last 3 years like a drunken sailor

if the Trump economy was the greatest ever, the debt should have gone down... Trump thought mega tax cuts for the rich were more important though

 

^^
You said this

^^^
Then you said this.

 

Well, feel free to give your 'balanced' views on Trump.

I'm willing to debate, at length, anything. What I find a lot on most forums, is the unwillingness to debate, and offer cop outs of claims of 'bias'. Or 'TDS' or "Trump hater"
or any one of the multitude of thought-terminating clichés imparted in to your average Trump fan's brain by none other than Trump. He's clever that way. Pump his flock with bucket loads of thought-terminating clichés and when anyone criticizes trump, they will regurgitate them and kill the argument.

You see, that's precisely what Trump wants you to do. (maybe not you, you claim to be 'unbiased'. ).

History is replete with examples of words being used in ways which took dictionaries a few years to catch up, and rewrite their dictionaries so if you are going to assert that the dictionary is the final arbiter on the meaning of a word, you will get challenged. Hate is a word that connotes 'bigotry'. I use loathing, and despite being synonyms in a dictionary, I use it to distinguish it from blind hatred, noting that one can legitimately loathe someone, if that feeling is justified. I could use the word hate, but hate, as stated, has a connotation of bigotry. Loathing does not.

Are you telling me that no one can loathe or hate anyone without just cause? That's absurd. It's a ridiculous claim.

Yet, republicans and others will call someone who doesn't like Trump a 'trump hater', as if it were being done in a vacuum. They do it all the time, as if that label is a legitimate argument.

It most certainly is not.

The last self-proclaimed 'balanced' person I met, couldn't seem to have a decisive position on anything. Oh, there is good and bad in everything, pros and cons, right?

Excuse me, I'll go pros and cons with a lot of people, until they are, in point fact, a demagogue who seeks power for the sake of power and nothing else, who do things like put kids cages, sending them to places with such poor record keeping they are unable to be reunited with their parents for no greater sin than a class B misdemeanor.

There is nothing more hypocritical than holier-than-though self-righteous indignation. There is no greater stench, than that, on a debate forum

I was called a Trump Hater. The incredibly biased term is levied as if loathing Trump is not a merit worthy response to who he is.

It's levied as if loathing Trump is done in a vacuum. That's a false charge.

Now, I gave my reasons, specific reasons, for asserting that Trump is a loathesome human being, not worthy of any attitude more than that. I had more reasons, but I kept it as short as I could.

Your only response is a holier-than-thou rant. How about refuting the reasons I gave? You are going to defend him? then do it.

Puffing yourself up via holier than thou treatment, is not a merit worthy argument

I get the term "trump hater". That' a term that evokes anger, and anger is an appropriate response, because it accuses loathing in a vacuum, which is a false charge.

I gave my reasons for loathing trump, and you make the claim that one cannot loathe someone and be correct.

That's a falsehood. And, your response was not to dispute my accusations against Trump, but to assert I cannot be correct because I'm biased. That's absurd.

I hate to break it to you, but one can be biased, and be correct. One does not preclude the other.

You ought to know, that in debate forums, the heat goes up, passions rise, it's not uncommon and it's natural.

This wishy washy "balanced" view you claim to own, someone such as I, hold as suspect.

I do not claim to be without bias, because I"m honest about it. I do meet people who claim to be unbiased, and balanced, whereupon they mistake thinking that pondering pros and cons of policies for which there are no pros is 'balanced'.

I got bad news for you, it's okay to be biased, ( I"ve never met anyone that isn't, unless they were so wishy washy they had no convictions about anything )

It's okay to be passionate about ones' views. But, avoiding specifics of an argument, by accusing your opponent of 'bias, therefore cannot be correct, is lazy.

If that's who you are, truly, "Unbiased" "willing to see the good and bad" and you think you are in a higher place, then give me the pros and cons of Hitler and tell Godwin to take a hike.

I'll be waiting.

In the meantime, I would not use "bias" against anyone hoping that would improve my argument, because I know that it doesn't that the only thing that matters if whether or not their argument has merit on it's own terms.

 

Demonstrate the soundness of your positions, however not so much.

 

Feel free to prove any of the specific accusations wrong.

 

~ The only way Trump will lose reelection is by vote fraud. That is really his only competition at this point .

 

I was accused or hating Trump. Such accusations from the right are common, and it's delivered with the premise it's done in a vacuum.

I gave my reasons proving that it's not done in a vacuum.. I'll let you debate their soundness.

 

1: Burden of proof is on you
2: You offered a list of generalizations and platitudes - so, not interested.

 

I refer to your position that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned and confiscated.

 

I support gun ownership for the minimum needed for self - defense. Anything beyond that helps mass shooters kill more people.

If you are going to say 'outlawing guns only puts guns in the hands of outlaws' I will have a response.

1. I'm not outlawing all guns.
2. Localized laws restricting ownership do not work, so my idea is at the federal level.
3. Very few crimes committed with fully automatic weapons, because federal restrictive legislation makes owning them very difficult.

On #3, proves that such a law could work, if implemented to it's fullest. In my view, the difficulty in gathering them up, getting people to surrender them, is an obstacle, but not the reason not to do it.

And, I will add a caveat: I'm not an expert on guns, gun ownership, or other possible dynamics and issues associated with this proposition with which I may be unaware

Therefore on this policy, I am willing to change my view if you provide me with a more compelling counter argument.

 

They were specific accusations. You might not like them, but that's on you.

 

This does not change the fact you cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, a ban on the sale and possession of semi-automatic firearms; this fact alone should be all the counter-argument you need.

.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

The list I quoted was generalized and non-specific - talking points and platitudes, something you ironically do not have interest in.
You might not like that, but that's on you.

 

IF you actually want to discuss- not argue, why do you fill your post with slander and hate? YOU define yourself by that. And you should ask yourself why you think that is going to impress anyone or change any minds at all. Sounds like you have no grasp of what "bias" means, yet you are saturated with it.

You have a lot of company here, and the rational members know who they are, and simply don't get baited into the loaded arguments they want to make. You will get "likes" from those who think just like you, but nothing will be changed. It's just noise in the background.

It's a constant in life that people who become obsessed with a hate for someone or something, are invariably fundamentally unhappy about- everything. They think life hasn't been fair to them, and they think they have tried hard regardless of what they actually have done. They dismiss their own choices as the source of their discontent, refuse to hold themselves accountable, and in doing so- must place blame outside themselves. If it weren't Trump, the Trump haters would be railing against someone else, or something else. It's their life that is the real issue, and they aren't about to face that. It makes no difference what Trump does, and it would make no difference what the rest of us did- there is no help for such people, because both the cause and the pain they love to feel are internal to them. There is a shred of solace when they find others in equal states of misery to share with- but nothing helps.

YOUR argument has no merit on it's own terms, and somehow, you have convinced yourself it does. I see that like I see a spoiled child throwing a tantrum, thinking it's some kind of debate. Of course, it's really a kind of punishment, where he beats up his parents to force them to pay him to stop misbehaving. No sale.

 

I felt that choosing Biden over Bernie was a mistake. The reason I felt that was because Bernie could garner huge crowds, and nothing terrifies Trump more than an opponent with as many, if not more, crowds bigger than his. But, we're stuck with Biden, dems have chosen him. He is polling well, and among blacks, very needed for dems to win, and Bernie wasn't. So, there's that, maybe your moderate dem is wiser than i am. We shall see.

 

Get your terms straight, slander is verbal, and libel is in print. I should think that you, in your 'older-than-me' advanced years ( I"m 69) you'd have learned that one by now.

FYI, don't make assumptions about me, I don't appreciate it. I'm not trying to impress you, or anyone. I know what bias means, and whether I know it or not, it may, or may not, improve or deny an argument in and of itself. .

Apparently you are confusing me with a debate forum newbie.

Detecting some rant and vent here, spiritgide, you don't want to be labeled as a hypocrite, do you? I mean, it's okay for you to rant and vent, but not anyone else?
.

Vacuous declarations are not a merit worthy counter argument. You'll need to provide more rationale or evidence than just blurting it out.
.

Sounds like a bona fide whine, spiritgide, if you ask me. And what's up with the moniker, you some kind of self appointed guru? Say it isn't so.

Well, your argument has proven to be hypocritical. I don't know what you think slander is, but whatever word sprung that charge from you is not worse than "trump hater", and I wouldn't call that slander.nor would I call it libel, which is what you meant. Like I said, get your terms straight. i'm younger than you, and I knew that one.

But you can't actually refute the original argument I presented. You are essentially saying that the tone I take of which you do not approve makes it automatically wrong.

That, sir, is a falsehood.

Moreover, please cite the items which you consider "slander".(libel)

 

Accusations are not platitudes.

Accusations are specific.

For example, "prolific liar"".

That's specific.

 

Slander BECOMES LIBEL WHEN PUBLISHED.... As in your chosen words, which you then publish in your post. That doesn't change what it is; it's the identical act; and you are guilty of both. You are apparently trying to avoid the fact you do it by arguing the proper labeling in this instance, as if you only hate in writing??? About the same we always see from the left.

You are playing the classic role of Trump-haters. Nothing new in your allegations or defenses of obnoxious behavior- just justifications and attacks for it being called out.

You simply don't matter. Your opinion has no substance, but of course, you are entitled to it. It does one thing however, it makes honorable people grateful that only part of our society thinks and acts as you do.
I'm not going to bandy this argument with you. Trolling garbage bait across the page isn't going to get you a thing- but it is obviously what you intend to be your "contribution" here. Eric Cartman feels the same way; thinks what he thinks matters. You're done here.

 

Biden doesn't have to be anything - he just has to win. Biden is Tried and True Establishment Insider - who happens to be somewhat of a good guy .. down to earth - or at least good at projecting that image.

Biden has people that will do things for him - The President is one man - one cog in a very large wheel - albeit a very important cog - one with the ability to influence the whole wheel "To Some Degree" ..

Neither Trump nor Biden have used the ability to influence the wheel - in the direction it needs to go "in a nutshell". Obviously both have pushed in good ways and bad ways.

Biden will sit back - relax - and continue the agenda of the Establishment interests he sides with - and has sided with for decades.

I am still trying to figure out exactly what Trump did to merit him being selected for the position of front man for Red - but - he has been fantastic with respect to implementing the Establishment agenda. Ramping up the fear factor - dividing the nation over "Hot Button Issues" - while increasing Gov't power and maintaining the Status Quo with respect to issues of wealth.

Many folks think that the big money Establishment interests are interested in making more money. At least in the case of the really big influencers - the main "Consortia" if you will among others - but this one a giant in the room - this is not really the objective - although partially true. The main objective is "Keeping" the money - as they already own most everything (slightly exaggerated of course but not by much).

Neither Biden or Trump has messed with that equation .. by Biden I really mean Obama/Biden/Hillary - why do you think Hillary gets 250K a pop for 15 min speech at wall street banker functions - were you thinking perhaps it was because of her good looks and charming personality ? of course not - its payback for a job well done.

In some respects - and on some issues - Trump and Biden play for the same team. It is not in where the various Establishment interests disagree that the Devil is found - but where they agree - that is where you find "The Devil".

Sidebar to the above comment in bold that I have to get in - couldn't resist ( its so incestuous that Trumps daughter dated Biden's Master)

So how much money are we talking about .. "Wealth" If Wiki - "State Street" - old bank 1700's - has something like 3 Trillion under Management. I believe blackrock is the biggest hedge fund in the world - something like 500 Billion - so 3 Trillion is a lot. 2017 Federal Revenue was 3.6 Trillion .

When you Wiki - Mellon Bank - you find the same - roughly 3 Trillion under management. so 6 Trillion total .. big money that is invested.
You can find one of the two in the top shareholders of most of the Fortune 100.

Then you read you read further - and see 32 Trillion dollars "under custody and management" both banks same - so roughly 64 Trillion.

Holy Carp-e-dium - I was under the impression that 100 Billion got one into the richest man in the world level. That is just two banks - and represents a number of families belonging to the same consortia.

These are the ones that want to "Keep" their money - so if you want to talk about Putin and his 200 Billion being an influence on Trump - The US - and so on - and want to pretend that this influence is greater than the influence of the 64 + Trillion Club - forgive me for calling out "State Sponsored Propaganda". (not meaning that you have expressed this - speaking in general)

 

I've not defamed you, that is your accusation. Ask any lawyer.

Now then,
Try finding an argument, and we'll debate it. I'm just getting a lot of whining from you.

 

I've been looking at a number of your rebuttals to various threads. Your rebuttals are weak. I've seen worse, though.

First off, you really don't strike me as someone who knows what they are talking about.

To wit:

You post anonymously, so how in holy hell can you defamed? Explain this to me.

You are confusing getting under one's skin with defamation, they are not the same.

You latest diatribe is just one long whine. That's it. I can only recommend for you to take a chill pill, thicken your skin, do some meditation, after all you are 'spiritgide', that implies some measure of spirituality of some kind.

You don't like my tone, I get it. Then find someone else to debate. There isn't a board on the internet where everyone is nice, not that I can find.

I'm just not a warm and fuzzy guy. Sorry.