We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[Fenring]

And you still can't fathom what the word "all" means. To refute "all" you only need one counter example.

To be fair that's a weak sauce refutation to a statement that is obviously hyperbole.

[TheDrake]

It doesn't take a deep AI search to find people who personally worked for Trump and disparage him. That list includes producers of his TV show, people who performed in his pageants, his own public involvement with the central park murder, people he hired to work in his administration - honorable men like Kelly and Mattis, not to mention Priebus. But they are all contemptable swamp monsters in your warped view of the world. Anyone who criticizes Trump is either mistaken or has an Agenda paid for by George Soros, I'm sure.

[rightleft22]

When I say all the people who know Trump (including his ex-wives) say he is a good man, you leap to the search engines to find something, anything, to counter the truth. Trump is a hugely popular president, and the people who support him are attacked by deceived, unknowledgeable lemmings who don't have a clue about how they are being misused. The result is more ignorance - not less.

If I made a argument that All the people that know Biden says hes a good man what have I proved.

I know that if I made such a argument that you would disagree and present lots links and such pointing to facts that not 'all' people that know Biden think hes a good man.

Perhaps we could get into the semantics of what it means to 'know' someone however we would just return to the place of disagreeing with each other and just as you ignore the links showing Biden as a 'good man' The 'Trump haters' ignore the links about Trump being a 'good man'.

We could talk about how you label anyone that posts anything negative about Trump character as being a 'Trump hater' while noting that most here do not label you a 'Biden Hater' with BDS when you post negative things about Biden.  But whats the point you won't/cant see it.

You expect people to accept your arguments against Biden as convincing when the same arguments can be made against Trump don't convince you. So why should the convice anyone? The only difference being that you like Trump and don't like Biden. The problem being that the arguments don't prove anything about either man and only reveal the motives of the ones making the arguments. That you can't or won't see this is why people use the word - projection - in context with your posts.

[TheDrake]

And you still can't fathom what the word "all" means. To refute "all" you only need one counter example.

To be fair that's a weak sauce refutation to a statement that is obviously hyperbole.

Okay, but that leads us to a more fruitful "how many people, exactly, are supporting Trump among the people who know him?"

[TheDrake]

And for some reason, I forgot to include the people who work at his golf courses who have reported his rampant cheating, disregard for the etiquette of golf, and people who have played golf with him who report he failed to pay up on a bet.

[DonaldD]

And you still can't fathom what the word "all" means. To refute "all" you only need one counter example.

To be fair that's a weak sauce refutation to a statement that is obviously hyperbole.

Ordinarily, one would think that the word "all" suggests hyperbole.  But with wmLambert, it is not obvious that he is using "all" hyperbolically.  He may sincerely believe that not a single person who knows Trump honestly thinks he is not a "good man". Just read his posts

[TheDrake]

And I would wonder what happens if I assert that "everyone who knows Nancy Pelosi thinks she is a good woman".

[Fenring]

Ordinarily, one would think that the word "all" suggests hyperbole.  But with wmLambert, it is not obvious that he is using "all" hyperbolically.  He may sincerely believe that not a single person who knows Trump honestly thinks he is not a "good man". Just read his posts

Haha, yeah. But it still doesn't help your blood pressure level (or TheDrake's, in this case) to argue a ridiculous claim with a ridiculous ad absurdum refutation. Better to just make the better argument on wmLambert's behalf and argue that. The real version of that argument is something like "the universal Trump hate is a media-created fantasy, and many people do in fact like him and think he's a good man." That's about as strong a claim as could be made without getting silly (about most politicians, really). All I'm saying is showing that one guy doesn't like Trump doesn't prove anything other than that we're having a silly argument.

[DonaldD]

Sure, lots of people believe Trump is a good man.

I'm willing to bet that even 30% of the population of the USA believe it to be true.

Let's call it 100 million people.  That's "lots".  Not much point in even recognizing that observation. 

And although TheDrake took the bait, what I was responding to was your suggestion that it was hyperbole.  It is pretty clear that it is not.  And as to refuting the spirit of how you interpreted the post: providing evidence of honourable people refuting the idea of Trump as a "good man" goes part way to disproving that idea, anyway.

[Fenring]

Sure, lots of people believe Trump is a good man.

I'm willing to bet that even 30% of the population of the USA believe it to be true.

Well, I believe we're talking specifically about people who know him personally. Beyond that, ok have at it, all I was saying is that TheDrake wasn't really refuting anything meaningfully.

[rightleft22]

all I was saying is that TheDrake wasn't really refuting anything meaningfully.

I suspect that was because wmLambert wasn't refuting or making a argument that was meaningful?

IMO the right and left have lost all grounds to make arguments against character and morals as it defines leadership. For the right its reusing to hold Trump accountable for and of his words and actions and for the right its 'purity politics' that make any argument hypocritical and more often then not a projection.

[DonaldD]

Sure, lots of people believe Trump is a good man.

I'm willing to bet that even 30% of the population of the USA believe it to be true.

Well, I believe we're talking specifically about people who know him personally. Beyond that, ok have at it, all I was saying is that TheDrake wasn't really refuting anything meaningfully.

If that was all, then providing a couple of high-status, well-known, and respected counter-examples actually goes a long way to disproving both the hyperbolic as well as the "reasonable" interpretation of wmLambert's claim.

[Fenring]

If that was all, then providing a couple of high-status, well-known, and respected counter-examples actually goes a long way to disproving both the hyperbolic as well as the "reasonable" interpretation of wmLambert's claim.

I think it would take quite a study to say anything meaningful about the personal feelings of the people who've interacted with Trump over his lifetime. Not talking about media hype, just people saying things like "well you know he's really aggravating, but on the other hand respectful" or maybe "acts like an ass, heart of gold" or maybe "he is exactly what you think he is". I mean I couldn't predict what the myriad people would say if they felt like they could just talk about it freely. My point is we don't have much data, and most of it is going to be sensationalist in nature. It's just a silly thing to argue about in the first place.

[rightleft22]

Now I think you may be arguing for the sake of arguing

[TheDrake]

I made the pedantic point, because I'm still wondering if Lambert will ever admit to any point. I suspect any person in a position of power could lay claim to hordes of people who think they are great people. It was a silly statement to make in support of someone, but I'm not just going to let it slide.

[Fenring]

I can see that, so long as that's where we're at

[Crunch]

Sure, lots of people believe Trump is a good man.

I'm willing to bet that even 30% of the population of the USA believe it to be true.

Let's call it 100 million people.  That's "lots".  Not much point in even recognizing that observation. 

And although TheDrake took the bait, what I was responding to was your suggestion that it was hyperbole.  It is pretty clear that it is not.  And as to refuting the spirit of how you interpreted the post: providing evidence of honourable people refuting the idea of Trump as a "good man" goes part way to disproving that idea, anyway.

Almost everybody believed he was a reasonably good guy ... until 2016.

[Kasandra]

Sure, lots of people believe Trump is a good man.

I'm willing to bet that even 30% of the population of the USA believe it to be true.

Let's call it 100 million people.  That's "lots".  Not much point in even recognizing that observation. 

And although TheDrake took the bait, what I was responding to was your suggestion that it was hyperbole.  It is pretty clear that it is not.  And as to refuting the spirit of how you interpreted the post: providing evidence of honourable people refuting the idea of Trump as a "good man" goes part way to disproving that idea, anyway.

Almost everybody believed he was a reasonably good guy ... until 2016.

That doesn't work even as a joke.  He was a *censored* and lots of people knew it.

[TheDeamon]

Almost everybody believed he was a reasonably good guy ... until 2016.

I thought he was a garbage fire in 2012 and a likely Democratic plant in the Republican Party to play spoiler?  He did a good job of sinking Romney in the general election that year too. Press reporting at the credited Romney's remarks in response to Trump's primary campaign played a decisive role in turning out the Hispanic vote for Obama in Ohio.

I'm pretty sure you can see me actively calling him a spoiler in the 2016 primary race as well if you look in the archives.

Even now, I'm not entirely convinced he actually wants the job he's in, he wasn't supposed to actually win. But he did, so he has to at least try to act the part. And that's likely to be why he will be re-elected, the guy tries to come up with ways to lose votes, and it isn't working to plan... Because so many voters are fed up with how the system currently is.

[TheDrake]

Public opinion of Donald Trump prior to his candidacy, as I've understood it, was mostly that he was entertaining and mostly harmless unless you worked for or with him, or happened to live near his golf courses. Or were a mayor of a community where he had a golf course. Or was a contestant in his pageants. Or was married to him. Or tried to rent an apartment from him and got your application marked with a ''C", presumably for colored person. Or tried to run a country while he fueled a movement to discredit his legitimacy.

[DonaldD]

Sure, lots of people believe Trump is a good man.

I'm willing to bet that even 30% of the population of the USA believe it to be true.

Let's call it 100 million people.  That's "lots".  Not much point in even recognizing that observation. 

And although TheDrake took the bait, what I was responding to was your suggestion that it was hyperbole.  It is pretty clear that it is not.  And as to refuting the spirit of how you interpreted the post: providing evidence of honourable people refuting the idea of Trump as a "good man" goes part way to disproving that idea, anyway.

Almost everybody believed he was a reasonably good guy ... until 2016.

Half the country already thought of him as a racist cawkwomble (sp) once he started pushing the birther nonsense, and that was well before 2016.

People who were paying attention knew this about him when he continued his racist attacks against the Central Park 5 following their convictions being vacated, and also knew this about him from his company's racist policies in excluding minorities from renting properties the 1970s.

So no, half the population already believed he was a reasonably BAD guy prior to 2016.

[Crunch]

Joe Biden on C-SPAN:

"You know the rapidly rising umm uh in with uh with I don't know."

This is really cruel. He has good days and he has bad days, as many dementia sufferers do. Somebody needs to step up and protect the dude.

[Kasandra]

Joe Biden on C-SPAN:

"You know the rapidly rising umm uh in with uh with I don't know."

This is really cruel. He has good days and he has bad days, as many dementia sufferers do. Somebody needs to step up and protect the dude.

I guess you think he was being stooped.

[Crunch]

Joe Biden in Philadelphia:

"Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did.”

tearing down a national hero with his own federal holiday, great strategy.

[DonaldD]

tearing down a national hero with his own federal holiday, great strategy.

Who was tearing down a national hero?

[TheDrake]

Joe Biden in Philadelphia:

"Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did.”

tearing down a national hero with his own federal holiday, great strategy.

What makes you interpret that as tearing King down? It's a true statement, number one. People in Europe didn't protest for days when King was assassinated. Number two, he didn't say anything about King's impact over the course of his life.

I'm neverBiden, but this is quite a stretch.

[Fenring]

So on a note going back to my previous post about "scratch out the names of the candidates, it doesn't matter any more", I came across a social media meme/post which said (in the usual red background, etc, with block letters) something like "Biden could be caught in a prostitution ring with a midget and something or other, and I'd still vote for him." Just reminded me of my earlier thesis, that at least for some people the names of the candidates and their identities has become irrelevant. They are voting for their team period end of story. Now this meme is on the more extreme end of things and I don't think it represents the view of the majority, but I view this on a sliding scale where in this instance the person is 100% open about not caring who the D candidate is or anything about him. For others it will be more likely an active defense, where no matter what one candidate has done the other one is worse somehow, justifying voting party line. The effect is the same, but the vehemence obviously less.

I think I also caught a more tongue in cheek version that said something like "If Biden shot trump on 5th Ave I'd still vote for him." It's taking the piss, but I wonder...

[D.W.]

Are we talking paying for sex with midgets or exploiting unwilling victims into forced sex trade run by Biden? 

[Fenring]

Are we talking paying for sex with midgets or exploiting unwilling victims into forced sex trade run by Biden? 

I got the impression it implied consensual 

[Crunch]

Joe Biden in Philadelphia:

"Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did.”

tearing down a national hero with his own federal holiday, great strategy.

What makes you interpret that as tearing King down? It's a true statement, number one. People in Europe didn't protest for days when King was assassinated. Number two, he didn't say anything about King's impact over the course of his life.

I'm neverBiden, but this is quite a stretch.

Id say MLK is the greatest civil rights leader America ever had the privilege of experiencing.

If all you white guys are cool with Floyd elevating to the same stature, good luck with that in the black community

[DonaldD]

Why do you think that statement has anything to do with "elevating" Floyd? 

You are seriously invested in this idea and somehow attributing it to other people.  It would be weird, but it is you, after all...

[Crunch]

Why do you keep making such smarmy comments?

[DonaldD]

Avoid much?  Why do you think that statement has anything to do with "elevating" Floyd?

[Crunch]

smh. Why do you think it doesn’t?

[DonaldD]

Try to answer TheDrake's question, if mine isn't clear.  You made an unsubstantiated claim.  Support it. Or don't.  People do actually notice your pattern - it's not exactly a secret.

[Crunch]

I made no claim, I stated my opinion. Dude, you are king of the strawmen.

[DonaldD]

oh, yes, the "it's just my opinion" so I don't need to defend it trope.

Next will be the Trumpy "but I was just kidding" defense.

[Crunch]

So, I'm gonna go ahead and just ignore the smarmy replies.   

Meanwhile, Biden lays the smackdown on Trump:

"He’s going down to Texas on Juneteenth, right? The first major massacre, literally speaking, of the, uh, Black Wall Street, right? Years ago."

This is what dementia looks like. Completely confused, trouble finding the words, putting unrelated events together. It's really sad to watch and I don't see how Biden will be able to do the debates.

[D.W.]

If he was going up against anyone but Trump I'd be worried. 

No, that's not true.  I'm worried about him regardless.  The standard by which Trump is measured (or not measured) is going to be different.  Neither of them are inspiring speakers. 

I am deeply disappointed in my party.  It's too bad the survival of the nation is at stake or maybe I'd be inclined to make a bigger stink about it come election day.  Yes, Crunch, we all know Biden can't beat Trump.  Thank god he doesn't need to.  Trump is doing that all on his own.  Biden just has to maintain a pulse through November in order to win.

Looking forward to the topic, "A Message from the President of the United States, Joe Biden" 

[TheDeamon]

Looking forward to the topic, "A Message from the President of the United States, Joe Biden" 

If he gets elected, which I'm still highly doubtful of him being able to win the EC(few doubts about the popular vote at this point though). I'm putting decent odds on him resigning between ratification of the results and taking the oath of Office. How that'll play into selection of the next VP becomes anyone's guess at that point.

[Kasandra]

Looking forward to the topic, "A Message from the President of the United States, Joe Biden" 

If he gets elected, which I'm still highly doubtful of him being able to win the EC(few doubts about the popular vote at this point though). I'm putting decent odds on him resigning between ratification of the results and taking the oath of Office. How that'll play into selection of the next VP becomes anyone's guess at that point.

That goes on the heap of wild speculation along with Trump holing up in the West Wing on January 20. The SC will rule this term whether states can punish faithless electors.  It could go either way, so if it goes in favor of the electors and against the states, my favorite conspiracy theory (as in the most bizarre to imagine) is that Trump will set aside a fund of private money (from donors, of course) to bribe electors to violate their mandate.  What's a fair price? 

[TheDrake]

I find it rich that an Orange God Worshipper can manage the cognitive dissonance of tearing a politician down for nonsense talk and verbal flubs.

[TheDeamon]

I find it rich that an Orange God Worshipper can manage the cognitive dissonance of tearing a politician down for nonsense talk and verbal flubs.

As distasteful as I find Trump to be. I'd put his tendency to use his own foot as a pacifier in a different category than what seems to be going on with Biden. Trump's been known to do "those kinds of things" for decades now, it's not a new behavior for him. What's happening with Biden is new.

[Kasandra]

I find it rich that an Orange God Worshipper can manage the cognitive dissonance of tearing a politician down for nonsense talk and verbal flubs.

As distasteful as I find Trump to be. I'd put his tendency to use his own foot as a pacifier in a different category than what seems to be going on with Biden. Trump's been known to do "those kinds of things" for decades now, it's not a new behavior for him. What's happening with Biden is new.

Which I guess means that Trump's pathological thought processes are somehow now acceptable.

[Kasandra]

So, I'm gonna go ahead and just ignore the smarmy replies.   

Meanwhile, Biden lays the smackdown on Trump:

"He’s going down to Texas on Juneteenth, right? The first major massacre, literally speaking, of the, uh, Black Wall Street, right? Years ago."

This is what dementia looks like. Completely confused, trouble finding the words, putting unrelated events together. It's really sad to watch and I don't see how Biden will be able to do the debates.

All recent polls have Biden ahead by 10-14%.  You're sounding desperate.

[TheDeamon]

All recent polls have Biden ahead by 10-14%.  You're sounding desperate.

National polling doesn't reflect the Electoral College. He doesn't need to win nationally, he just has to win the EC.

And November is still 5 months away.

[Kasandra]

Of course, but can you imagine Trump winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 10-14%?  He's got a LOT of ground to make up, and he can't do it just by rigging the voting.  But if he softens his positions on any of an array of things, he might lose some of the people in his 38% favorable rating.  Don't listen to me, read the polling experts who say it's on Trump to convince voters why they should re-elect him in the midst of a pandemic, recession, social unrest over racist government policies and foreign policy setbacks and failures like North Korea.  If he wants to keep his evangelical numbers above water, he's going to have to do something about the Jehovah's Witness persecution in Russia, too. 

He can't divide his way to victory this time.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/877951588/2020-electoral-map-ratings-biden-has-an-edge-over-trump-with-5-months-to-go

Even with a huge national poll lead, the EC is still a toss up between Biden vs. Trump.

If Biden gets over 50% nationwide and wins by 5+ points as he's polling to do currently and still loses then it points to a real flaw in the system. Gore and Clinton both failed to get majorities, simply getting pluralities but if we end up in a system where a majority loses and a plurality has lost 3 times in 7 elections it points to a larger democratic issue.

[rightleft22]

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/877951588/2020-electoral-map-ratings-biden-has-an-edge-over-trump-with-5-months-to-go

Even with a huge national poll lead, the EC is still a toss up between Biden vs. Trump.

If Biden gets over 50% nationwide and wins by 5+ points as he's polling to do currently and still loses then it points to a real flaw in the system. Gore and Clinton both failed to get majorities, simply getting pluralities but if we end up in a system where a majority loses and a plurality has lost 3 times in 7 elections it points to a larger democratic issue.

The flaw is called the Electoral College, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/17/877951588/2020-electoral-map-ratings-biden-has-an-edge-over-trump-with-5-months-to-go

Even with a huge national poll lead, the EC is still a toss up between Biden vs. Trump.

If Biden gets over 50% nationwide and wins by 5+ points as he's polling to do currently and still loses then it points to a real flaw in the system. Gore and Clinton both failed to get majorities, simply getting pluralities but if we end up in a system where a majority loses and a plurality has lost 3 times in 7 elections it points to a larger democratic issue.

The flaw is called the Electoral College, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Yep, but the flaw is laid bare and is system breaking if Trump wins a second term while losing the popular vote 47%-52%. Its one thing when the two diverge once in a hundred years, but 3 out of 7 elections is crazy and if the popular vote margins get larger its really bad for democracy.