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

Democrats don't want to see their role in dividing the country. Their hatred of Trump and their insane, screeching, criminal reaction to his election exceeding anything I've seen from their despicable party in my lifetime. Our country will be lucky to avoid a full-on civil war with millions dying.

 

Well, their hatred started before the election. Then when Trump won, protests, dressing up as vaginas, screaming at the sky, marches and rioting, constant impeachment efforts etc, and their **** show continues to this day, the American people have had to watch their hatred in the media. Obama divided the people based on colour, Democrats divided people politically. So all this civil war mess has come about because of 12 to 14 years.

 

delete

 

Look, with due respect, I hate to be annoying, but your reply requires me to respond in the following manner;

This is an inadequate rebuttal; ad homs are not an argument

Once again, this is an inadequate rebuttal; comment offers vacuous allegation, which is to say, unsupported by evidence, or rather, none was provided. A thoughtful path of reasoning would have been acceptable, at the minimum, but, alas, none was provided and commenter stooped to a lazy broad swipe.

Another one--inadequate rebuttal; comment is a cop out to avoid an adequate rebuttal.

Here we go again: inadequate rebuttal, posturing is not an argument

Well, I apologize for this annoying response (which includes it's verbosity) but you leave me no choice (other than to ignore you, which i don't like to do)

The above constitutes what I believe is an accurate reply based on what was presented to me, and, if that is annoying, that is beyond my control. Perhaps I can work on the 'be nice' part. But, dealing with ad homs, it's hard to be nice, sorry about that.

Forgive me for the patronizing tone, but can I avoid it? Not so sure. We all have our egos and egos can really get in the way, perhaps way too often.

If, in the future, you want to avoid this type of reply, independentthinker, I suggest providing an adequate rebuttal, which would consist of a premise, a path of reasoning or logic to support that premise, examples given and preferably sourcing to back up the premise. Anything beyond this, such as non arguments, posturing, ad homs, cheap shots, sophomoric quips, etc., and all of their variants, when such are the salient part of or total aspect of your rebuttal, such will be indicated in my reply. My observation is that just about everyone on this forum will probably be willing to engage with you at the tone and tenor of your presentation, and perhaps I'm that exception (though not all the time, of course), but, we all must be who we are. To say that is NOT to say 'I"m holier than thou', it is only to say, 'this is me' and any inference drawn along those 'he's a know it all' lines is inaccurate.

So, When that happens, when I'm presented with a rebuttal rife with non arguments and it's variants, my choice is to ignore the comment, which is probably the wise thing to do, or merely indicate what was presented, or lower myself to the tone and tenor of the rebuttal and engage at that level, which, I used to do, but have resolved to no longer do

Have I ever been guilty of these things (what I like to call 'debate sins' or 'pseudo debate tricks') ? Well, we all have, but I have resolved to stick to arguments sans these things. Some color i.,e 'personality' is acceptable, of course, just as long as the color doesn't exceed a threshold whereby non arguments and it's variants become the salient aspect of one's argument. .

And FYI, yes, you have mistakenly confused an accurate reply based on what was presented as 'knowing it all'. I repeat: I would never make such a claim nor can you accurately draw such an inference from my threads and rebuttals.

All I ask is that you reply with an adequate rebuttal, and no, 'adequate' does not mean I have to agree with it, offer just a premise, a path of reasoning with examples if a claim is being made, and preferably, with sources to back it up. None of these things have to be of high caliber, but, to my way of thinking, an adequate rebuttal should contain these things sans the non arguments and it's variants.

I think that is reasonable and fair. If all you want to to is provide an unsubstantiated opinion, just preface it with something like, 'in my opinion', etc. However, I'm not interested in mere opinions, or clever conversation ( though we all do that at times) I'm interested in how members achieve their positions with their paths of reasoning, examples, etc, and sourcing, if possible, because, in so doing, it invites a continued discourse on an idea.

I realize that this kind of reply gives one the motive to 'let's cut him down to size', but any inclination to do such a thing is to misunderstand my message, entirely. I'm not the one posturing, you are. I would hope, in the future, you avoid doing it. And yes, I know 'patronizing' is a form of posturing, I get that, but I don't know how to explain this point of view without coming off in a patronizing way.

Now, if you have a point, let's debate it, courteously, respectively, and adequately.

Oh, and if you find fault with this reply, do it adequately, courteously, respectively, that is the level at which I prefer to engage. I'd be more than happy to debate why I replied this way, with the caveat, if your response to this comment is 'it's annoying' that will not be a detractor for me (because I don't know how to comment on the caliber of your rebuttal [which I'm forced to do because your reply contains ad homs and posturing throughout] without being annoying. I do accept that I could be nicer about it, so, I'll try more so in the future). I know, I should have just ignored your comment, and probably would have been the wiser, but, I never professed wisdom.

 

I'm not entirely sure since I stepped out of politics for decades but I believe none of those things apply to any other Republican POTUSes either.

 

I substantiated my claim.

You did not.

 

Inadequate rebuttal; 'fake news' is a thought terminating cliché, and, as such, a non argument.

Thought terminating clichés are designed to kill the conversation, they are not a competent argument.

They are strategically embedded into the demagogue's base to curtail critical thinking and kill conversations as demagogues do not like his base to think critically. nor does the demagogue like dissent, hence his creation of thought-terminating clichés.

This is done by inventing such buzzkill (such as 'fake news' 'TDS' etc) words via repetition into the minds of his base.

You may be unaware that you have been so manipulated, but, in my view, you have.

to reiterate:

Competent, or rather, adequate arguments do not have to be agreeable, they only have to invite further debate and discussion.

 

All you did was post a YouTube video.