Trump has provoked more division, hatred, violent threats, than any president in history

I have yet to see any evidence of that, and I don't think the courts found that argument convincing. But even if we were to just give PA to Trump (and there's no reason to do that), Biden still won. But I see your strategy is to keep floating debunked theories in order to defend an attempt to install an unelected dictator. Cool. Coolcoolcool.

 

Provided. Multiple times. So, the only answer is that you ignore it. So it doesn't otherwise undermine your confidence in your dear mental patient...

 

I've asked several times and no one has provided it to me. If you want to link me to a post in which you have done so, I'll gladly review it. I don't share your own dear mental patient's hatred of facts.

 

To be fair, there is an accomplishment Trump should be recognized for. Namely, bringing Iran to the brink of having a nuclear weapon.

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/iranian-breakout-timeline-now-at-zero

 

Hmm.. Laughable. And of course, you can't just research it for yourself... of course that's too hard, so because you won't personally involve yourself, it isn't real.

 

I have, bud. But thank you for admitting you aren't prepared to have this conversation.

 

Nah.. I've had this conversation soo many times that having you attempt to reassert such a ridiculous lie, it just doesn't move me to paper you with the truth again. So why bother?

 

Welp, the moment you are able to actually discuss this topic, let me know. Until you are willing to do so, then I agree, why bother?

 

I get it now. You play a lot of dungeons and dragons.. who else uses the world welp.... It explains a LOT

 

I don't know about all that. Most of the hatred is coming from the Leftists.

 

That's not true, I supplied a link the other day, I'm working remote now but wii find it again when home.

If the EC had been "faithless" they would have been performing as the founders intended; see Federalist 69.

tRaitor tRump, as he proved, was clearly unqualified.

 

Yes and no that groups chspion has been the Democratic party since FDR.

 

I do play Dungeons and Dragons! Not a lot, but every few weeks I get in a game. If you'd like to hear more about my 9th level Firbolg Eldritch Knight currently going through the Curse of Strahd campaign, let me know. But that hasn't nothing to do with the word "welp." I've heard that all over the rural south since well before I started playing DnD.

But I'm sorry you think that evidence no longer matters just because you don't like someone's hobbies. That's sad.

 

I guess that means you acknowledge that everything else was true.

 

No, I'm invoking the right wing Cassidy Hutchinson paradigm. That was wrong so it's ALL wrong.

 

I rest my case..

 

See #85, which is only a partial list, the rest are contain in some two dozen books about Trump. and a growing number by those who were his staff and close to him.

But, of course, most on the right are in a state of cognitive dissonance

 

Cassidy does seem to have perjured herself in front of congress. For either payment or future employment, and represented by who again? The Alias folks? And mostly, I'd say she lied in the same way Blasey Ford did. Or that Brown Jackson did. But isn't that really the point you make? Lies get your lie into the mainstream where it festers. And isn't that exactly the point?

 

Your red herring, is a red herring.

It's called, denial/cognitive dissonance.

 

It looks like a fun game for boys I not sure what piece the 5th guy up on the right is holding

 

Perhaps you're referring to the "welp knob".... ?

 

What constitutional qualifications did Trump not have?

 

Or endowed with common sense.

 

You'd be surprised, let's take a closer look:

Well, your reference to 'TDS' proves it right there, that you are engaging in non critical thinking. It is classic 'thought terminating cliché', a non argument. TDS is a thought terminating cliche and not a fact, because only Trump fans accept it as valid, that is one way we can detect TTCs, ony partisans are using them. yes, the left has their own variations, but that isn't the point.

Non arguments are those which attempt to kill the conversation, disallow reasoned discourse. They are symptoms of cognitive dissonance. See highlighted sections below, which pertain to this phenomena, which is a tool used by demagogues (Trump bears all the hallmarks of your typical demagogue) to control their flock, keep them from thinking and designed to kill debate. A demagogue doesn't like his base to engage in critical thinking, so he repeats certain phrases designed to kill debate and critical thnking. Examples of TTCs are TDS, 'Fake News' "leftist loons", "radical leftists" "leftists are communists" red baiting, "Stop the steal", that sort of thing. He installs the TTCs into the minds of his flock by repetition, over an over and over again, and truth and facts are really irrelevant. There are other types of non arguments as mentioned below, but the highlighted section is the one to note, in your case.

See, a non argument isn't really debatable or it's not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance, kill-the-source arguments (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' , it's also variant on the 'kill the messenger' tactic. The only time such an argument might have merit if the source has an extremely low rating in mediabiasfactcheck.org, such as 'Gatewaypundit' has.) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation and stop his base from critical thinking ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" "Fake News" "commie lib', 'pinko', etc (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, axioms. That being said, depending on the skill of the debater, they can be on the mark. But, less than skilled debaters often use them incorrectly). And last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your education, your age, military service, etc., but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, age or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, noting that relying solely on 'authority' is considered a logical fallacy ( but can be appropriate if pertinent and used to supplement other more corroborative items in a series of items used to buttress the argument ) and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up by talking the opponent down, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up under the misguided notion that doing so improves one's argument, which, of course, it most certainly does not, in only reveals the absense of debate skill, immaturity, etc.

I'm not a clinical psychologist, and of course I could be wrong, but in this layman's opinion, given your usage of TTCs, it appears you are under a demagogue's control, (well, at least a bona fide critical thinker wouldn't be so quick to use Trump TTCs, that is certain) you will not be able to see or accept the above, but, unfortunately, it appears to be the case, and it would seem that there isn't much I can do to snap you out of it.