So Where was the Teleprompter?

[MrMoe]

Must I? Surely, you can't imagine any other possibility, hmmm?

Well you can't be neutral because you're definitely not neutral with Trump, and you claimed to be fair. And the fair way is to apply the same standard to both.


So the only conclusion is that you also see

Who said I was neutral?

You seem to be alluding to it in your fist answer.

I think your logic is flawed there.

In what way?

I guess that might depend on whether or not who they are is relevant to the standard applied, wouldn't you think?

If we're talking about a standard of criminal convictions and fraud, as an example, then who Trump is, a person who has several criminal convictions and has been found guilty of fraud on multiple occasions, would be entirely relevant.

It would be relevant in a criminal case, but were not in criminal case, we're talking about the two candidates and their ability , or in this case inability to communicate clearly, so that other stuff you keep bringing up is irrelevant.

Nope. Another assumption, one that has been contradicted by things I've actually said.

It's not an assumption, it's obvious you have a double standard since you will have no problem saying Trump rambles incoherently but refuse to say that about Kamala.



So do you agree that Kamala Harris incoherently rambles too, just like you claim Trump does? Yes or no?

I don't know if you're aware of this phenomenon, but sometimes, weirdly enough, it happens that one can compare two things and have them be different in some way. Odd, I know, but it has been known to happen.

Yeah, one apple can be green and the other apple can be red, but they are both still apples. That would be a fair comparison. But you are comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. Hence it's a false equivalence.

See? Was that so hard? You got an answer before you even asked the question.


And that answer came when I brought it up in the first place. Check, see for yourself.

It's irrelevant information to the discussion we were having.

One thing about me you might have picked on by now, I'm pretty careful about what I write. Comes with being a writer, and having a background in journalism, I suppose. As a rule, when I make a point, I try to be as specific as I can when I make it. I go out of my way to avoid being unclear or vague. So, when you ask me questions that were answered in the original post, I can't help but wonder if you even bothered to read it in the first place. Like above, when you ignored what I specifically said about narcissists, and then asked why I said it...when I told you that in the very next sentence after the one you quoted. Had you read that the first time, we wouldn't have had to go through that. Further, if you go back and read the post where I brought the entire business up, you'd see exactly why I brought it up, and the context in which I did. It was all there. You just had to read it.

I didn't ignore it, I just don't understand why you brought it up in the discussion. And the rest of the sentence still doesn't answer why you bought it up in a discussion that wasn't about narcissism. My only guess is that you dislike Trump so much you have to interject irrelevant jabs at him any chance you get.

And that's your problem. Because when you do that, you always seem to get it wrong. Not only that, but a lot of the time, your assumptions are directly contradicted by what I've actually written.

Actual that's your problem. If you don't want me to get things wrong then don't be so evasive or I will just continue to assume what your vague answers mean. And contradict yourself. For example your first few answers above.

You assumed that what I wrote implied I knew some of these people personally, even though nothing in what I wrote indicated that. Nothing. And you continued to make that assumption, even after I specifically said I didn't know them personally.

Your phrasing gave that impression. I even gave you some examples earlier,


What makes you think I continue to believe you know them personally? I never really believed that,

Even when I specifically said I did not? Interesting observational skills you have there.

No. It was just a sarcastic jab. I knew you don't know them personally. Don't know why you're so bent out of shape over that question.

Let's take a field trip, shall we? Back to post #321:

Regarding Harris, I know she came to a different conclusion than you have because she didn't do what she would be constitutionally mandated to do if she truly felt the President was unable to fulfill his duties of his office, per the 25th Amendment. Why she came to the conclusion she did, I can't say...nor have I tried to. I only know what she did...and in this case, didn't, do.​

​

Oh, and that's not the only time I explained that. See what I mean about wondering if you bothered to read my posts in the first place?

Biden dropped out so we don't know what decision she came to. She might have planned to before he dropped out. So you can't know if she agreed or disagreed with me.

I mentioned Trump's previous lies about the stolen election as well. All part and parcel.

Not really. So far you haven't been able to make a connection between that specific quote and what happened on Jan 6.

When did I ever claim he was? What, exactly, did I say?

It's a question not a statement of fact. Please learn the difference.

I'll ask a more precise question. Do you think he is at fault in anyway when he used that phrase "fight like hell"?

And yet, I didn't. I said the harm was caused by the action, I never said he was directly or criminally culpable for it. I did not directly blame him for anything.

This is another example of where you assume stuff, instead of reading what I've written.

And you still wonder why I'm cautious when discussing stuff with you?

blame

1. to say or think that someone or something did something wrong or is…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"To say or think that someone or something did something wrong or is responsible for something bad happening".

"To be the reason for something bad that happens".


You claim Trump's "fight like hell" is the indirect reason why they did it. So, in other words, you blame him.

I never claimed it was that specific quote, and just that specific quote, that was the only cause. In fact, when I first used that example, I never even mentioned that quote:

Just as an example, there are almost a thousand people who were convicted or pled guilty to crimes committed on January 6, as a direct result of doing what they felt Trump wanted them to do. Add to that those who were directly harmed as a result of those criminal acts, including some deaths, and add the number of people affected or harmed in many different ways from events stemming from that event, and the lies told that culminated in it. And that's just one example.​

On the other hand, that article did document the exact thing I actually did claim, which I emphasized for you.

-- A2SG, see what happens when you actually read what I've written?

You don't know if that specific quote was even partly a cause at all. So, as I said regarding that specific quote and it connection to what happened on Jan 6 you are trying to make is still a post hoc fallacy.

 

[A2SG]

Well you can't be neutral because you're definitely not neutral with Trump, and you claimed to be fair. And the fair way is to apply the same standard to both.

As I have. Both ramble, but I find Trump's ramblings to be so far off of reality to be nonsensical, whereas Harris' are inarticulate, sure, and seem like she's going out of her way to avoid saying details she may need to walk away from later on. That's pretty much the same thing most politicians do, and have done for generations. Nothing out of the ordinary there. On the other hand, claiming that Washington's army took the airports during the Revolutionary war, that's out of the ordinary. And blaming the error on the teleprompter is just a sad and pathetic excuse. In my opinion.

So, no. I'm not neutral. Obviously, you and I see things differently here. You place far more significance on Harris' ramblings, and seem to find sense (somehow) in Trump's bizarre rants. I chalk that up to your apparent desire to defend Trump at all costs, no matter what. Your business, of course.

So the only conclusion is that you also see

No, another conclusion is simply that I don't see the same thing you do when I compare the two candidates.

You seem to be alluding to it in your fist answer.

How so? What, specifically, did I say that led you to that conclusion?

In what way?

Here's what you said:

"Not deflection, simply comparison." (quoting me)

That can only mean you think Harris also incoherently rants.​

Comparing two things does not mean they will be the same in every respect. It simply means that, while there is a similarity on which the comparison is based, there may also be differences.

But, let's get down to brass tacks here. Let's compare rambling answer to rambling answer.

First, Harris: In a friendly interview with Oprah, she said:

Americans by character are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations. We believe in what is possible, we believe in what can be, and we believe in fighting for that. That’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body, freedom to be safe from gun violence, freedom to have access to the ballot box, freedom to be who you are and just be the love, who you love, openly and with pride. Freedom to just be.​

Vague, yes. Rambling, sure. Substantive, not really. All in all, it sounds like something any politician might have said at any time. You want to criticize her for saying a lot, but not actually saying anything, I'd agree.

Now, Trump: At a rally in Las Vegas, Trump said:

So we have a country that’s in trouble. We’re going to end the mandate on electric one day. They want to make all boats too. I went to a boat company in South Carolina, the boat. I said, “How is it?” He said, “It’s a problem, sir. They want us to make all electric boats.” These are boats that are from 16 to 35 or so feet, fishing boats, leisure boats, beautiful company in South Carolina, beautiful.
The guy’s been doing it for 50 years. He sells hundreds of boats every couple of months. I mean, really fantastic guy. And they use the Mercury engines and different engines in the back, no problem. They want to take that out. They want to make it all electric. He said, “The problem is the boat is so heavy it can’t float.”
I said, “That sounds like a problem.”
He said, “Also, it can’t go fast because of the weight. And they want to now have a fifty-mile or a seventy-mile radius. You have to go out 70 miles before you can really start the boat up and you go out at two knots.” That’s essentially almost like two miles an hour.
Say, “How long does it take you to get out there?”
“Many hours, and then you’re allowed to go around for 10 minutes, but you have to come back because the batteries only last for a very short period of time.”
So I said, “Let me ask you a question.”
And he said, “Nobody ever asked this question, and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT,” very smart.
I say, “What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery’s underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?”
By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately. Do you notice that? A lot of shark… I watched some guys justifying it today. “Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry, but they misunderstood who she was.” These people are crazy.
He said, “There’s no problem with sharks. They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now who really got decimated and other people too,” a lot of shark attacks.
So I said, “So there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, and water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?” Because I will tell you he didn’t know the answer.
He said, “Nobody’s ever asked me that question.”
I said, “I think it’s a good question. I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water.” But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark.
So we going to end that. We’re going to end it for boats. We’re going to end it for trucks.​

Putting aside the fiction that anyone's trying to "make all electric boats", if you can find any sense or tether to reality in that story (which, let's be clear, doesn't even remotely sound like it really happened anywhere outside of Trump's imagination), I hope you can one day find treatment.

So, when comparing the two candidates, I personally find Harris to be vague, but Trump to be completely divorced from reality. The former I can excuse, even if I find it annoying, since it's what politicians always do. The latter, well, it indicates to me that Trump may not have as strong a grasp on reality as the leader of the free world should have. In my opinion. You may come to a different perception, and that's your right. Vote however you want. So will I.

All in all, as reasons go to not vote for someone, this is a small one, but it's part of the larger picture. If this were the only difference between the two candidates, and no other differences existed, it might make the decision tougher. But it's not.

It would be relevant in a criminal case, but were not in criminal case, we're talking about the two candidates and their ability , or in this case inability to communicate clearly, so that other stuff you keep bringing up is irrelevant.

But we're not only talking about their inability to communicate clearly. We're also talking about whether or not to vote for either candidate. Sure, ability to communicate is a factor, but it's not the only factor. As I told you before, I don't consider the rambling that both candidates do to be a large part of my reason for deciding which one to vote for. It's a factor, sure, but not at all the most important one.

It's not an assumption, it's obvious you have a double standard since you will have no problem saying Trump rambles incoherently but refuse to say that about Kamala.

I've explained the difference, as I see it. You, clearly, see it differently.

C'est la vie.

So do you agree that Kamala Harris incoherently rambles too, just like you claim Trump does? Yes or no?

See above.

Yeah, one apple can be green and the other apple can be red, but they are both still apples. That would be a fair comparison. But you are comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. Hence it's a false equivalence.

Nope. Again, explained above.

It's irrelevant information to the discussion we were having.

I considered the point relevant to the subject at hand at the time. And I explained why.

I didn't ignore it, I just don't understand why you brought it up in the discussion. And the rest of the sentence still doesn't answer why you bought it up in a discussion that wasn't about narcissism. My only guess is that you dislike Trump so much you have to interject irrelevant jabs at him any chance you get.

Back in post #325, when I challenged you to compile every example of both Harris and Trump speaking inarticulately or rambling incoherently, or even simply committing a gaffe, to see which one did it more, you blamed your inability to document your assertion on a belief that I wouldn't accept it no matter what, even though I said I would. So, I responded:

Ah, that old dodge. Look, if you had the evidence, I'd look at it and consider it. If you could actually document every gaffe, every example of word salad, every weird stream-of-consciousness rant from both candidates, I'd be impressed. I certainly wouldn't do it, but then again, I don't place as much importance or significance on it as you seem to. To me, it's more amusing than anything else. But you keep bringing it up, so we're constantly addressing it.

But I understand why you can't...or won't...do the work to document these things. It's daunting. Trump alone would be overwhelming, since his rallies are a literal goldmine of weird rants. Further, he never misses a chance to be on camera, but that's typical for narcissists like Trump, they often seek the limelight. This is why I remain unconvinced that Harris does that kind of thing far more than Trump, and I find it unbelievable that you don't think Trump has more examples of strange inarticulate ravings...but nevertheless. If you're not going to provide evidence for your claim, then I'm just going to have to say I doubt it, and move on with my life. If you're fine with that, so am I.​

See the context now? Had you read this back then, you wouldn't have to keep wondering why I said it now. And you'd have seen why I brought it up.

Actual that's your problem. If you don't want me to get things wrong then don't be so evasive or I will just continue to assume what your vague answers mean.

But I'm not evasive. As I've pointed out more than a few times now, when you ask a question, purportedly for clarification, the answer to that question was right there, all along. My problem here is that I've been expecting you to read it the first time.

And contradict yourself. For example your first few answers above.

If you feel I've contradicted myself, feel free to provide a specific example.

Your phrasing gave that impression. I even gave you some examples earlier,

You have yet to quote a single thing I've ever written that indicated, in any way, I personally knew any of the people in question. The assumption is your own, and came only from you.

What makes you think I continue to believe you know them personally? I never really believed that,

If you never believed it, why do you keep bringing it up? What relevance does that assumption have to the discussion?

No. It was just a sarcastic jab. I knew you don't know them personally. Don't know why you're so bent out of shape over that question.

Because you keep bringing it up. If you never believed it, why continue mentioning it? If you stop mentioning it, I'll stop talking about it. End of story.

Biden dropped out so we don't know what decision she came to.

Biden did not resign the Presidency, and we know she did not invoke the 25th Amendment. These are facts, incontrovertible and undeniable.

She might have planned to before he dropped out. So you can't know if she agreed or disagreed with me.

The only thing that changed is Biden chose not to run for reelection. He's still President, and is still performing all the duties of the office. If she felt, as you do, that he's unfit to do that, she'd be obligated to invoke the 25th Amendment. She has not.

Not really. So far you haven't been able to make a connection between that specific quote and what happened on Jan 6.

If you can't find a connection, you're in the minority.

But, again, I never claimed it was only that quote that influenced people to act as they did. It was part of a larger narrative, one that Trump had been using since even before the election results were known. The lie that the election was stolen, that he legitimately won, that somehow, the country and democracy itself were under siege because he legitimately lost the election. He constantly made this claim, over and over again, all without ever, not even once, offering even the slightest hint of evidence to support it. To the point where over 60 court challenges were dismissed or denied for lack of evidence.

Trump riled up his base, even telling them to be there on that date, "It'll be wild." He stoked the flames of discontent, and riled up his base, culminating in a charge to "fight like hell, or you won't have a country any more." The last quote wasn't all he said, not by a long shot.

All that said, I still don't claim Trump is criminally culpable for the actions taken by those who felt they were doing what he wanted them to do. Maybe he did want it, maybe he didn't, I can't say for sure. The responsibility for the actions taken are those of the ones who took it. I never denied that.

But....to the point you made, it was Trump's actions, the lies, the constant charge that the election was stolen (despite absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever), the stoking of anger and discontentment among his base, that resulted in a lot of harm to a lot of people. Most of them brought it on themselves, no question. But it was Trump's actions that started the ball rolling. And thus, with that example (which I also stated was simply an example, not the only one), I refuted your claim "Trumps actions have only hurt a few people."

As I've explained before.

It's a question not a statement of fact. Please learn the difference.

I know the difference very well. You asked the question, "You should know since you are already aware he's not at fault in legally culpable way. So in what way is he at fault?" I want to know what comments of mine led you to ask the question, since you acknowledged that I already know he's not at fault in any legally culpable way.

I'll ask a more precise question. Do you think he is at fault in anyway when he used that phrase "fight like hell"?

Legally, no.

Now, IF I said I believed he's morally responsible for the actions that he inflamed and drove his acolytes to perform, that would only be an opinion. Nothing more. You'd disagree, and say you believed otherwise...and we could discuss that back and forth, each of us pretending to know what Trump's true intentions were, and in the end, neither of us would be convinced to change our mind. No facts would be used, only opinion, conjecture, and assumptions. In the end, I suspect you'd wind up saying I can't prove any of it, or don't know what's truly in Trump's mind, and I'd admit that, just as I've admitted it here, and beforehand.

Would that be a valuable discussion?

blame

1. to say or think that someone or something did something wrong or is…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"To say or think that someone or something did something wrong or is responsible for something bad happening".

"To be the reason for something bad that happens".


You claim Trump's "fight like hell" is the indirect reason why they did it. So, in other words, you blame him.

You said "Trumps actions have only hurt a few people." I showed you an action that hurt a lot more than a few. You're free to disagree.

You don't know if that specific quote was even partly a cause at all.

It seems a logical inference. He said "fight like hell," and immediately afterward, that's exactly what they did. If you want to believe there's no connection whatsoever, that's your business. Many other Trump apologists will probably agree with you.

So, as I said regarding that specific quote and it connection to what happened on Jan 6 you are trying to make is still a post hoc fallacy.

Nope, and I've already given you my reasons for saying so. You're free to disagree, of course.

-- A2SG, but you're wrong....

 

[MrMoe]

As I have. Both ramble, but I find Trump's ramblings to be so far off of reality to be nonsensical, whereas Harris' are inarticulate, sure, and seem like she's going out of her way to avoid saying details she may need to walk away from later on. That's pretty much the same thing most politicians do, and have done for generations. Nothing out of the ordinary there. On the other hand, claiming that Washington's army took the airports during the Revolutionary war, that's out of the ordinary. And blaming the error on the teleprompter is just a sad and pathetic excuse. In my opinion.

So you are unwilling to give Trump the benefit of the doubt even though you can't disprove it wasn't a teleprompter issue. Wonder why.


Also, It is basically a sentence that passes by in seconds that was clipped from a speech that goes on for who knows how long. At most it is an error. Not even close to what is defined as rambling.


Definition: "(of writing or speech) lengthy and confused or inconsequential."


Funny thing is that it describes kamala Harris' answers perfectly

No, another conclusion is simply that I don't see the same thing you do when I compare the two candidates.

Because you're bias.

How so? What, specifically, did I say that led you to that conclusion?

Because you unwilling to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but have no issue giving it to Biden and Harris.

Here's what you said:

"Not deflection, simply comparison." (quoting me)​

​

That can only mean you think Harris also incoherently rants.​

Comparing two things does not mean they will be the same in every respect. It simply means that, while there is a similarity on which the comparison is based, there may also be differences.

But, let's get down to brass tacks here. Let's compare rambling answer to rambling answer.

First, Harris: In a friendly interview with Oprah, she said:

Americans by character are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations. We believe in what is possible, we believe in what can be, and we believe in fighting for that. That’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body, freedom to be safe from gun violence, freedom to have access to the ballot box, freedom to be who you are and just be the love, who you love, openly and with pride. Freedom to just be.​

Vague, yes. Rambling, sure. Substantive, not really. All in all, it sounds like something any politician might have said at any time. You want to criticize her for saying a lot, but not actually saying anything, I'd agree.

Now, Trump: At a rally in Las Vegas, Trump said:

So we have a country that’s in trouble. We’re going to end the mandate on electric one day. They want to make all boats too. I went to a boat company in South Carolina, the boat. I said, “How is it?” He said, “It’s a problem, sir. They want us to make all electric boats.” These are boats that are from 16 to 35 or so feet, fishing boats, leisure boats, beautiful company in South Carolina, beautiful.​

The guy’s been doing it for 50 years. He sells hundreds of boats every couple of months. I mean, really fantastic guy. And they use the Mercury engines and different engines in the back, no problem. They want to take that out. They want to make it all electric. He said, “The problem is the boat is so heavy it can’t float.”​

I said, “That sounds like a problem.”​

He said, “Also, it can’t go fast because of the weight. And they want to now have a fifty-mile or a seventy-mile radius. You have to go out 70 miles before you can really start the boat up and you go out at two knots.” That’s essentially almost like two miles an hour.​

Say, “How long does it take you to get out there?”​

“Many hours, and then you’re allowed to go around for 10 minutes, but you have to come back because the batteries only last for a very short period of time.”​

So I said, “Let me ask you a question.”​

And he said, “Nobody ever asked this question, and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT,” very smart.​

I say, “What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery’s underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?”​

By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately. Do you notice that? A lot of shark… I watched some guys justifying it today. “Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry, but they misunderstood who she was.” These people are crazy.​

He said, “There’s no problem with sharks. They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now who really got decimated and other people too,” a lot of shark attacks.​

So I said, “So there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, and water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?” Because I will tell you he didn’t know the answer.​

He said, “Nobody’s ever asked me that question.”​

I said, “I think it’s a good question. I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water.” But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark.​

So we going to end that. We’re going to end it for boats. We’re going to end it for trucks.​

I think it's you who may not have as strong a grasp on reality if you think Trump's speech is worse than Harris'. First of some context. Kamala Harris was giving an interview when she said that. In an interview you're supposed to actually say things of substance. If you're fine with presidential candidates not answering questions or giving anything of substance then that's fine for you, but not others.

Trump on the other hand is at a rally and is simply retelling a story of asking some MIT guy a hypothetical question.

You claim it's "completely divorced from reality" It's that way because it's not supposed to be reality. it's obvious he was asking a hypothetical question. At worst shows Trumps ignorance of science and technology, which is no surprise since he grew up a rich kid. Problem had no need to learn these things.

This whole shark story you keep fixating on is a nothing burger.

But we're not only talking about their inability to communicate clearly. We're also talking about whether or not to vote for either candidate. Sure, ability to communicate is a factor, but it's not the only factor. As I told you before, I don't consider the rambling that both candidates do to be a large part of my reason for deciding which one to vote for. It's a factor, sure, but not at all the most important one.

You are, but not me, since i already told you I can't vote. And those other factors should bias you're opinion on a candidate's ability to communicate. But in your case it abviously has.

I've explained the difference, as I see it. You, clearly, see it differently.

C'est la vie.

You haven't. All you did was give me two examples and called Kamala's speech rambling while you called Trump's speech incoherent rambling.

What's the difference between rambling and incoherent rambling?

Nope. Again, explained above.

One is a speech with no substance said during an interview and the other is a funny story told at a rally. False equivalence.

Back in post #325, when I challenged you to compile every example of both Harris and Trump speaking inarticulately or rambling incoherently, or even simply committing a gaffe, to see which one did it more, you blamed your inability to document your assertion on a belief that I wouldn't accept it no matter what, even though I said I would. So, I responded:

Ah, that old dodge. Look, if you had the evidence, I'd look at it and consider it. If you could actually document every gaffe, every example of word salad, every weird stream-of-consciousness rant from both candidates, I'd be impressed. I certainly wouldn't do it, but then again, I don't place as much importance or significance on it as you seem to. To me, it's more amusing than anything else. But you keep bringing it up, so we're constantly addressing it.​

​

But I understand why you can't...or won't...do the work to document these things. It's daunting. Trump alone would be overwhelming, since his rallies are a literal goldmine of weird rants. Further, he never misses a chance to be on camera, but that's typical for narcissists like Trump, they often seek the limelight. This is why I remain unconvinced that Harris does that kind of thing far more than Trump, and I find it unbelievable that you don't think Trump has more examples of strange inarticulate ravings...but nevertheless. If you're not going to provide evidence for your claim, then I'm just going to have to say I doubt it, and move on with my life. If you're fine with that, so am I.​

See the context now? Had you read this back then, you wouldn't have to keep wondering why I said it now. And you'd have seen why I brought it up.

So you think Trump has more examples of rambling because he likes to appear on camera more? That is a huge assumption.

But I'm not evasive. As I've pointed out more than a few times now, when you ask a question, purportedly for clarification, the answer to that question was right there, all along. My problem here is that I've been expecting you to read it the first time.

This contradicts your previous answer where you said "I'm pretty careful about what I write." This can bee seen as a form of evasion.

If you feel I've contradicted myself, feel free to provide a specific example.

Me: "Since you claim you've never tried to justify them, you must agree that they are incoherent ramblings."

You: "Must I? Surely, you can't imagine any other possibility, hmmm?"

Also you: "Who said I was neutral?"


There are only three possible positions to have.
. You justify them because you don't agree they're incoherent ramblings.
. You don't justify them because you agree they're incoherent ramblings.
. Or you're neutral and choose neither.

Since you reject the first to options it must obviously be the the last position. But then you go on to show you are clearly not neutral since you downplay Harris's answers as "rambling" and avoid calling it incoherent rambling like you did with Trump.

You have yet to quote a single thing I've ever written that indicated, in any way, I personally knew any of the people in question. The assumption is your own, and came only from you.

You claimed Harris came to a different "conclusion" than me, regarding Biden's fitness for continuing as president. You talk like someone who knows them personally. Obviously you don't, but you're phrasing gave that impression.

If you never believed it, why do you keep bringing it up? What relevance does that assumption have to the discussion?

It's an observation. People make observations when speaking to people.

Biden did not resign the Presidency, and we know she did not invoke the 25th Amendment. These are facts, incontrovertible and undeniable.

Right, but Harris' mindset is not. She may have thought he was fit enough to continue these last few months but not for another four years.

The only thing that changed is Biden chose not to run for reelection. He's still President, and is still performing all the duties of the office. If she felt, as you do, that he's unfit to do that, she'd be obligated to invoke the 25th Amendment. She has not.

See above.

If you can't find a connection, you're in the minority.

Then I must be in the minority that doesn't use post hoc logical fallacies.


How do you know I'm in the minority by the way?

But, again, I never claimed it was only that quote that influenced people to act as they did. It was part of a larger narrative, one that Trump had been using since even before the election results were known. The lie that the election was stolen, that he legitimately won, that somehow, the country and democracy itself were under siege because he legitimately lost the election. He constantly made this claim, over and over again, all without ever, not even once, offering even the slightest hint of evidence to support it. To the point where over 60 court challenges were dismissed or denied for lack of evidence.

Trump riled up his base, even telling them to be there on that date, "It'll be wild." He stoked the flames of discontent, and riled up his base, culminating in a charge to "fight like hell, or you won't have a country any more." The last quote wasn't all he said, not by a long shot.

All that said, I still don't claim Trump is criminally culpable for the actions taken by those who felt they were doing what he wanted them to do. Maybe he did want it, maybe he didn't, I can't say for sure. The responsibility for the actions taken are those of the ones who took it. I never denied that.

But....to the point you made, it was Trump's actions, the lies, the constant charge that the election was stolen (despite absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever), the stoking of anger and discontentment among his base, that resulted in a lot of harm to a lot of people. Most of them brought it on themselves, no question. But it was Trump's actions that started the ball rolling. And thus, with that example (which I also stated was simply an example, not the only one), I refuted your claim "Trumps actions have only hurt a few people."

As I've explained before.

All this has been said ad nauseum and yet still no proof that that specific quote had anything to do with what happened on Jan 6.

I know the difference very well. You asked the question, "You should know since you are already aware he's not at fault in legally culpable way. So in what way is he at fault?" I want to know what comments of mine led you to ask the question, since you acknowledged that I already know he's not at fault in any legally culpable way.

The one that question is in response too:

You: "I'm just saying Trump can't be prosecuted for their actions, because he's not legally culpable."

Legally, no.

Now, IF I said I believed he's morally responsible for the actions that he inflamed and drove his acolytes to perform, that would only be an opinion. Nothing more. You'd disagree, and say you believed otherwise...and we could discuss that back and forth, each of us pretending to know what Trump's true intentions were, and in the end, neither of us would be convinced to change our mind. No facts would be used, only opinion, conjecture, and assumptions. In the end, I suspect you'd wind up saying I can't prove any of it, or don't know what's truly in Trump's mind, and I'd admit that, just as I've admitted it here, and beforehand.

Would that be a valuable discussion?

But is he morally responsible for saying that specific phrase which you claim (without proof) partly contributed to what happened on Jan 6?

You said "Trumps actions have only hurt a few people." I showed you an action that hurt a lot more than a few. You're free to disagree.

Not really. Biden and Harris have hurt more people and directly by their actions.

It seems a logical inference. He said "fight like hell," and immediately afterward, that's exactly what they did. If you want to believe there's no connection whatsoever, that's your business. Many other Trump apologists will probably agree with you.

Basic logic agrees with me. At least you are now admitting to using a post hoc fallacy.

Nope, and I've already given you my reasons for saying so. You're free to disagree, of course.

-- A2SG, but you're wrong....

See above.

 

[DaisyDay]

Remember that Donald John told the crowd that he was going with them, that they would fight together.

That didn’t happen because the SS thought it would be too hazardous.

There was a lot of planning/plotting amongst the elite would be insurrectionists in the months, weeks and days leading up to the riot. The riot was meant to serve as a distraction and a delay of the certification. Some of the plotters had with them the fake electors’ certificates intending to throw the vote to Donald.

Pence refused to be given the false papers and instead certified the actual vote. Donald labeled him a traitor; he was unbothered by the threat of hanging his VP by his ardent supporters on site.

 

[A2SG]

So you are unwilling to give Trump the benefit of the doubt even though you can't disprove it wasn't a teleprompter issue. Wonder why.

Benefit of the doubt for WHAT? That he actually believed Washington's army took the airports in 1775? That some idiot wrote that on a teleprompter and he read it without realizing how ridiculous it was? Ever?

There is no way Trump comes out good on that one.

Also, It is basically a sentence that passes by in seconds that was clipped from a speech that goes on for who knows how long. At most it is an error. Not even close to what is defined as rambling.

The Revolutionary War remark wasn't an example of rambling, it was an example of Trump being "so far off of reality to be nonsensical." Define it as an "error" if you like, but it's an error that no sane person would ever just let pass. Not after all that's been said about it since. Even with a self-effacing "I don't know what to say, it was a brain fart," remark, but Trump is not one to ever admit he's wrong, no matter what. Goes with his ego, the whole narcissist thing.

Definition: "(of writing or speech) lengthy and confused or inconsequential."

Funny thing is that it describes kamala Harris' answers perfectly

Okay. Not like she's the first politician in history to be guilty of that.

Because you're bias.

Yup. Just like you. (Oh, and it's "biased," by the way. I normally let it pass, but you've made the same mistake several times now, and it's been bugging me.)

Because you unwilling to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but have no issue giving it to Biden and Harris.

There is no doubt to give the benefit of for that one. No matter how you view it, Trump doesn't come out as anything less than an idiot for not realizing that there were no airports during the Revolutionary War.

I think it's you who may not have as strong a grasp on reality if you think Trump's speech is worse than Harris'. First of some context. Kamala Harris was giving an interview when she said that. In an interview you're supposed to actually say things of substance. If you're fine with presidential candidates not answering questions or giving anything of substance then that's fine for you, but not others.

I didn't say I was fine with it. If you recall, this is what I said:

Vague, yes. Rambling, sure. Substantive, not really. All in all, it sounds like something any politician might have said at any time. You want to criticize her for saying a lot, but not actually saying anything, I'd agree.​

Trump on the other hand is at a rally and is simply retelling a story of asking some MIT guy a hypothetical question.

Um, the guy was supposedly a boat company employee in South Carolina. He mentioned his own "relationship with MIT," calling himself "very smart" because of it. Trump has no relationship with MIT. He never went there. At best, he has an uncle who taught there, nothing more. How that constitutes a "relationship" I'll never know.

You claim it's "completely divorced from reality" It's that way because it's not supposed to be reality.

No kidding.

it's obvious he was asking a hypothetical question.

What hypothetical question was he asking, exactly?

At worst shows Trumps ignorance of science and technology, which is no surprise since he grew up a rich kid. Problem had no need to learn these things.

Um, he's displayed that absolute total ignorance over and over again. Along with an unwillingness to learn. Maybe you're okay with that quality in a President, but I'd prefer one who knows when he or she is wrong, and can correct their own error. Trump has shown no capacity for that whatsoever.

This whole shark story you keep fixating on is a nothing burger.

To you, I'm sure it seems that way.

You are, but not me, since i already told you I can't vote.

Right...you're not American. I forgot. Just out of curiosity, where are you from?

And those other factors should bias you're opinion on a candidate's ability to communicate. But in your case it abviously has.

As I see it, being vague when campaigning is annoying, but I've also seen Harris be quite eloquent and on point at times. When delivering a State of the Union speech, for example, I'm sure she'll be prepared and articulate. But when answering questions off the cuff, she can get a bit lost in her own vagueness. As I've said, it's not a great quality, but compared to Trump's issues in the same area, as well as many, many others, she still comes across as a better candidate, in my mind. Not a perfect candidate by a long shot, just better than Trump.

That's a low bar, though.

You haven't. All you did was give me two examples and called Kamala's speech rambling while you called Trump's speech incoherent rambling.

Yeah, and I explained how I saw the differences between them. You're free to see them differently, of course.

What's the difference between rambling and incoherent rambling?

One's more coherent than the other.

One is a speech with no substance said during an interview and the other is a funny story told at a rally. False equivalence.

I already explained how I saw them. As I said, you're free to see the two differently than I do. C'est la vie.

So you think Trump has more examples of rambling because he likes to appear on camera more? That is a huge assumption.

Maybe...more opportunities, more of his ramblings. But since you're unwilling to do the work to prove your belief that Harris does that kind of thing more often, we'll never know, will we?

This contradicts your previous answer where you said "I'm pretty careful about what I write." This can bee seen as a form of evasion.

It's not a contradiction at all. You're free to see it that way, of course, but there is no actual contradiction there, nor an evasion.

Me: "Since you claim you've never tried to justify them, you must agree that they are incoherent ramblings."

You: "Must I? Surely, you can't imagine any other possibility, hmmm?"

Also you: "Who said I was neutral?"


There are only three possible positions to have.
. You justify them because you don't agree they're incoherent ramblings.
. You don't justify them because you agree they're incoherent ramblings.
. Or you're neutral and choose neither.

Since you reject the first to options it must obviously be the the last position. But then you go on to show you are clearly not neutral since you downplay Harris's answers as "rambling" and avoid calling it incoherent rambling like you did with Trump.

I've explained how I view them already. You don't have to agree.

You claimed Harris came to a different "conclusion" than me, regarding Biden's fitness for continuing as president. You talk like someone who knows them personally. Obviously you don't, but you're phrasing gave that impression.

I don't see how. I explained my reasoning, based on facts available to everyone. No special or inside knowledge was necessary for the conclusion.

It's an observation. People make observations when speaking to people.

In this case, it's an observation that was denied outright, disproven completely, and one you claim you never believed in the first place, but still persist on making. Even in this very post of yours. Time to retire it, I'd say.

Right, but Harris' mindset is not.

Again, from the post I quoted earlier:

Why she came to the conclusion she did, I can't say...nor have I tried to. I only know what she did...and in this case, didn't, do.​

Keep in mind, I said that on Sept. 14, and it wasn't the first, or the last, time I said the same thing. And you keep assuming otherwise. Why bother responding to my posts if you're not going to read them?

She may have thought he was fit enough to continue these last few months but not for another four years.

Sure, maybe. Which would be disagreeing with your view that he's unfit for duty now, and has been for a while...at least, since the debate.

Then I must be in the minority that doesn't use post hoc logical fallacies.

Which I did not commit. I showed the connection, that many people committed the crime because they believed it was what Trump wanted them to do. Keep in mind, I never said Trump, himself, was legally culpable for those actions.

How do you know I'm in the minority by the way?

A lot of people see a clear connection between Trump's lies since the election, along with the Ellipse speech, and the events of January 6 at the Capitol, especially with the testimony of those who committed crimes on that day. Only Trump apologists such as yourself do not. But, to be fair, I will concede I don't have actual numbers on that. Maybe it will be clearer after November 5.

All this has been said ad nauseum and yet still no proof that that specific quote had anything to do with what happened on Jan 6.

Except for the testimony of those who pled guilty, or were found guilty, for crimes committed that day.

The one that question is in response too:

You: "I'm just saying Trump can't be prosecuted for their actions, because he's not legally culpable."

Yup. What about it? He isn't legally culpable, at least not at this time. Maybe someday, some ambitious prosecutor will build a case for it, but I doubt it will happen.

But is he morally responsible for saying that specific phrase which you claim (without proof) partly contributed to what happened on Jan 6?

That is an opinion some could hold, sure. But, keep in mind, as I've said a bunch of times now, it wasn't just that quote, and only that quote, that those who were guilty of crimes alluded to when they were tried. Trump's constant lies about a stolen election prior to it contributed as well. Can't forget those.

But I'm not going to debate the moral responsibility for Trump's lies since the election and his rhetoric on the Ellipse. As I said before, I know how that will end, and it's a road I'm not interested in going down with you.

Not really. Biden and Harris have hurt more people and directly by their actions.

Care to offer anything more than an assertion without evidence?

Basic logic agrees with me. At least you are now admitting to using a post hoc fallacy.

Your logic doesn't account for the fact that many of those who committed the attack on the Capitol on that day admitted they believed Trump wanted them to do it. So there is a connection, given under oath and proven in court. Your logic is refuted by facts. So, no fallacy.

-- A2SG, keeping in mind, of course, that their stated belief doesn't mean Trump is legally implicated, or can be prosecuted.....

 

[MrMoe]

Benefit of the doubt for WHAT? That he actually believed Washington's army took the airports in 1775? That some idiot wrote that on a teleprompter and he read it without realizing how ridiculous it was? Ever?

There is no way Trump comes out good on that one.

"You had to put on your windshield wipers to get literally the oil slick off the window. That's why I had so damn many other
people I grew up have cancer. And why can't for the longest time Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation."

The Revolutionary War remark wasn't an example of rambling,

Yet that's what you were claiming it was just a while ago. "Nonsensical rambling" is what I recall you calling it.

it was an example of Trump being "so far off of reality to be nonsensical."

You have to prove it was Trump's error and not the teleprompter first. So far it's a simple error to me.

Do you feel the same way about Biden's oil causes cancer comment?

Define it as an "error" if you like, but it's an error that no sane person would ever just let pass.

You mean like the when Biden said he would cap rent at $55 instead of the 5 percent the teleprompter said?

Biden must not be sane either according to you.

Not after all that's been said about it since. Even with a self-effacing "I don't know what to say, it was a brain fart," remark, but Trump is not one to ever admit he's wrong, no matter what. Goes with his ego, the whole narcissist thing.

He's admitted he's been wrong before.

Yup. Just like you. (Oh, and it's "biased," by the way. I normally let it pass, but you've made the same mistake several times now, and it's been bugging me.)

How do you know I'm biased?

There is no doubt to give the benefit of for that one.

?

No matter how you view it, Trump doesn't come out as anything less than an idiot for not realizing that there were no airports during the Revolutionary War.

There are other possibilities, like his eyesight is failing him and it was another word on the teleprompter, his memory is failing him and confused it with a more recent war.


Do you feel the same about Biden's oil slicks cause cancer comment? I think that comment makes him look like an idiot.

I didn't say I was fine with it. If you recall, this is what I said:

Vague, yes. Rambling, sure. Substantive, not really. All in all, it sounds like something any politician might have said at any time. You want to criticize her for saying a lot, but not actually saying anything, I'd agree.​

Didn't claimed you were fine with it, I'm just saying you who may not have as strong a grasp on reality if you think Trump's speech is worse than Harris's.

Um, the guy was supposedly a boat company employee in South Carolina. He mentioned his own "relationship with MIT," calling himself "very smart" because of it. Trump has no relationship with MIT. He never went there. At best, he has an uncle who taught there, nothing more. How that constitutes a "relationship" I'll never know.

Okay, so Trump was at a rally and retold a story of asking some boat company employee in South Carolina a hypothetical question.

No kidding.

This article takes Trump's hypothetical in good humor. the way Trump intended it to be taken.

What hypothetical question was he asking, exactly?

"Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?"

Um, he's displayed that absolute total ignorance over and over again. Along with an unwillingness to learn. Maybe you're okay with that quality in a President, but I'd prefer one who knows when he or she is wrong, and can correct their own error. Trump has shown no capacity for that whatsoever.

I personally haven't seen that. Got any evidence?

Right...you're not American. I forgot. Just out of curiosity, where are you from?

Down under.

One's more coherent than the other.

You really haven't demonstrated that. One use lots of circumlocution and the other like to tell stories. That's all I got from your comparison.

Maybe...more opportunities, more of his ramblings. But since you're unwilling to do the work to prove your belief that Harris does that kind of thing more often, we'll never know, will we?

I found and posted more examples of Biden and Kamala than Trump, so I doubt your theory is correct.

In this case, it's an observation that was denied outright, disproven completely, and one you claim you never believed in the first place, but still persist on making. Even in this very post of yours. Time to retire it, I'd say.

Not really. You keep confusing clarification questions for positive statements.

Again, from the post I quoted earlier:

Why she came to the conclusion she did, I can't say...nor have I tried to. I only know what she did...and in this case, didn't, do.​

Keep in mind, I said that on Sept. 14, and it wasn't the first, or the last, time I said the same thing. And you keep assuming otherwise. Why bother responding to my posts if you're not going to read them?

See above.

Sure, maybe. Which would be disagreeing with your view that he's unfit for duty now, and has been for a while...at least, since the debate.

Then she's an idiot.

Which I did not commit. I showed the connection, that many people committed the crime because they believed it was what Trump wanted them to do. Keep in mind, I never said Trump, himself, was legally culpable for those actions.

But you have by continuing to insist that Trump's "fight like hell" comment contributed to what happened on Jan 6.

A lot of people see a clear connection between Trump's lies since the election, along with the Ellipse speech, and the events of January 6 at the Capitol, especially with the testimony of those who committed crimes on that day. Only Trump apologists such as yourself do not. But, to be fair, I will concede I don't have actual numbers on that. Maybe it will be clearer after November 5.

I don't consider myself a Trump apologist, I just like calling people out on their political double standards.

Except for the testimony of those who pled guilty, or were found guilty, for crimes committed that day.

They never claimed that the "fight like hell" comment was even partly responsible for them doing what they did. You are assuming it was.

That is an opinion some could hold, sure. But, keep in mind, as I've said a bunch of times now, it wasn't just that quote, and only that quote, that those who were guilty of crimes alluded to when they were tried. Trump's constant lies about a stolen election prior to it contributed as well. Can't forget those.

But I'm not going to debate the moral responsibility for Trump's lies since the election and his rhetoric on the Ellipse. As I said before, I know how that will end, and it's a road I'm not interested in going down with you.

"it wasn't just that quote, and only that quote,"


You still haven't proved that quote contributed to what happened in any way.

Care to offer anything more than an assertion without evidence?

. The thirteen service members killed by Biden's botched pullout of Afghanistan.


. The disastrous pier idea that put aid workers at further risk and actually led to a decrease in the aid to Palestinians.

. The record number of illegal immigrants they've let into the country, some who have killed American citizens.


. All the Fentanyl also coming across the border that is killing thousands of Americans.

Your logic doesn't account for the fact that many of those who committed the attack on the Capitol on that day admitted they believed Trump wanted them to do it. So there is a connection, given under oath and proven in court. Your logic is refuted by facts. So, no fallacy.

-- A2SG, keeping in mind, of course, that their stated belief doesn't mean Trump is legally implicated, or can be prosecuted.....

Not disputing that. What I am disputing is your claim that Trump's "fight like hell" comment contributed to what happened. You have not proven that. So it remains a logical fallacy.

 

[A2SG]

"You had to put on your windshield wipers to get literally the oil slick off the window. That's why I had so damn many other
people I grew up have cancer. And why can't for the longest time Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation."

Okay. Um....no idea where that one came from, let alone who said it. Care to offer a clue?

Yet that's what you were claiming it was just a while ago. "Nonsensical rambling" is what I recall you calling it.

Yeah, he does that too. The child care bit was an example of that, as I recall. That case, unlike the sharks and batteries bit, wasn't as divorced from reality, just rambling about everything but the point of the question, so not a lot different from Harris, but significantly less coherent for that, as I see it. Again, you're free to see it differently, if you choose to.

You have to prove it was Trump's error and not the teleprompter first. So far it's a simple error to me.

I don't have to prove a thing. Either way, Trump doesn't come up roses. Either he, himself, thought that Washington's army took the airports, or he read that on a teleprompter, and never realized the absurdity of it. Neither is good.

Do you feel the same way about Biden's oil causes cancer comment?

Oh, was that a quote from Biden? You didn't attribute it, so I had no idea what it was or who it was from. Be nice to have known that.

But, that aside, yeah, I have no idea how oil slicks on windshields affect cancer rates, so it sounds like another nonsensical gaffe from a man who has always been prone to such things. Oh well. Maybe he shouldn't be running for another term, huh?

You mean like the when Biden said he would cap rent at $55 instead of the 5 percent the teleprompter said?

Biden must not be sane either according to you.

Saying 5 twice instead of once isn't in the same ballpark as thinking Washington's army took the airports in 1775, dude. But, as I've said before, you're free to interpret any of this stuff however you want to.

He's admitted he's been wrong before.

Must have missed that one. Oh well, I can't keep track of everything.

How do you know I'm biased?

It's this little trick I do called reading your posts. You should try it sometime.

There are other possibilities, like his eyesight is failing him and it was another word on the teleprompter, his memory is failing him and confused it with a more recent war.

I've no doubt apologists can come up with any number of excuses for Trump. It's what you guys do best.

Do you feel the same about Biden's oil slicks cause cancer comment? I think that comment makes him look like an idiot.

He does not come out well with that one, no. Can't argue with you on that one.

Didn't claimed you were fine with it, I'm just saying you who may not have as strong a grasp on reality if you think Trump's speech is worse than Harris's.

Apparently, you and I view reality differently. No surprise there, you defend Trump, I find him indefensible.

Okay, so Trump was at a rally and retold a story of asking some boat company employee in South Carolina a hypothetical question.

Yeah. Then went on a tear about batteries and sharks that made no sense whatsoever.

This article takes Trump's hypothetical in good humor. the way Trump intended it to be taken.

But it also pointed out that those who manufacture batteries for boats didn't forget that boats get wet sometimes, and took precautions against things like electrocution. Something that apparently skipped Donny's notice entirely. Maybe he thinks batteries and toasters are the same thing, who knows?

A2SG: "What hypothetical question was he asking, exactly?"

"Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?"

Ah yes, the age-old question that has been on the mind of every Las Vegas voter for generations.

I personally haven't seen that. Got any evidence?

What have we been talking about this whole time? I've given you examples of Trump's ignorance about science regarding batteries, and about Trump's ignorance of Revolutionary war history, to say nothing of his delusion that because he has an uncle that taught at MIT that means Donny himself is "very smart" or has a "relationship" with MIT. The man shows no hint that he knows just how little he knows. "Stable genius" indeed.

Down under.

Ah. Cool. Say Hi to Bradskii for me.

You really haven't demonstrated that. One use lots of circumlocution and the other like to tell stories. That's all I got from your comparison.

If that's all you got, then that's all you wanted to get. Cosi cosa.

I found and posted more examples of Biden and Kamala than Trump, so I doubt your theory is correct.

So? A few handpicked examples doesn't exactly show the whole picture, does it? If you want to make a definitive statement about the sheer number on both sides, you need an exhaustive, accurate accounting of both. That takes work, effort and commitment.

Not really. You keep confusing clarification questions for positive statements.

No, I know the difference between a question and a statement. The former has this little crooked thing at the end with a period at the bottom, the other has just a period.

Then she's an idiot.

Hey, if that's how you choose to regard those who disagree with you on certain points, that's your business.

But you have by continuing to insist that Trump's "fight like hell" comment contributed to what happened on Jan 6.

I'm not the one claiming that...the defendants did that themselves. They said, under oath, they believed they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

I don't consider myself a Trump apologist, I just like calling people out on their political double standards.

Do you do the same for those who criticize Biden or Harris? If you have, I'd be curious to see those posts, because somehow, I've missed them.

They never claimed that the "fight like hell" comment was even partly responsible for them doing what they did. You are assuming it was.

Again, for the seventeenth time (at least), I never said that comment, and that comment alone, was the impetus for their actions. I mentioned others.

"it wasn't just that quote, and only that quote,"

You still haven't proved that quote contributed to what happened in any way.

I've shown you how many defendants have claimed, under oath, they were doing what they thought Trump wanted them to do. If you think every one of them is lying, you'll have to take it up with them, and their lawyers.

. The thirteen service members killed by Biden's botched pullout of Afghanistan.

. The disastrous pier idea that put aid workers at further risk and actually led to a decrease in the aid to Palestinians.

. The record number of illegal immigrants they've let into the country, some who have killed American citizens.

. All the Fentanyl also coming across the border that is killing thousands of Americans.

Okay. All valid criticisms, and I'm not going to defend any of them. If you feel they outweigh the damage to the nation Trump's lies about the 2020 election, his attempts to demand election officials illegally "find" votes, his false electors scheme, as well as his attempts to circumvent taking responsibility for his crimes just because he was President for four years, as well as the damage caused by the crimes and frauds he's committed even before taking office, and other actions, that's your business. I disagree. Oh well.

Not disputing that. What I am disputing is your claim that Trump's "fight like hell" comment contributed to what happened. You have not proven that. So it remains a logical fallacy.

It does not, but since you continue to choose not to see that, that's all there is to say on the matter. I've done all I can do to make you see where you're wrong, I can't do more.

-- A2SG, I've herded enough cats to know how pointless it can be sometimes.....unless there's food involved.....

 

[Bradskii]

"You had to put on your windshield wipers to get literally the oil slick off the window. That's why I had so damn many other
people I grew up have cancer. And why can't for the longest time Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation."

If you live near an oil refinery then you'll be exposed to one of the most common hydrocarbons - benzene. From here: PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT - Toxicological Profile for Benzene - NCBI Bookshelf

'Benzene in the air can also be deposited on the ground by rain or snow.'

Biden's full comment: "Guess what—the first frost, you know what was happening?" said Biden. "You'd have to put on your windshield wipers to get, literally, the oil slick off the window."

And from here (plus multiple other sites): Proximity to Oil Refineries and Risk of Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

'We observed that proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of incident cancer diagnosis across all cancer types.'

 

[7thKeeper]

If you live near an oil refinery then you'll
Biden's full comment: "Guess what—the first frost, you know what was happening?" said Biden. "You'd have to put on your windshield wipers to get, literally, the oil slick off the window."

And from here (plus multiple other sites): Proximity to Oil Refineries and Risk of Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

'We observed that proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of incident cancer diagnosis across all cancer types.'

Ah, so MrMoe was quote mining or someone else did it and he just took it.

 

[MrMoe]

Okay. Um....no idea where that one came from, let alone who said it. Care to offer a clue?

It's a Biden quote. He claimed the oil slick is the reason he had cancer.

The White House had to clarify the President had 'non-melanoma' skin cancer before taking office.

I don't have to prove a thing. Either way, Trump doesn't come up roses. Either he, himself, thought that Washington's army took the airports, or he read that on a teleprompter, and never realized the absurdity of it. Neither is good.

He's old just like Biden who is prone to gaffes, yet you won't give Trump the benefit of the doubt that this was a gaffe and he simply missed the error. In other words, you have a double standard.

Oh, was that a quote from Biden? You didn't attribute it, so I had no idea what it was or who it was from. Be nice to have known that.

But, that aside, yeah, I have no idea how oil slicks on windshields affect cancer rates, so it sounds like another nonsensical gaffe from a man who has always been prone to such things. Oh well. Maybe he shouldn't be running for another term, huh?

Finally seeing what was obvious to millions for years.

Saying 5 twice instead of once isn't in the same ballpark as thinking Washington's army took the airports in 1775, dude. But, as I've said before, you're free to interpret any of this stuff however you want to.

Nice spin but he didn't 5 twice. "five-five" is saying five twice. He specifically said "fifty five dollars", which is completely different to "5 percent".

Once again demonstrating your double standard of giving Biden and Harris the benefit of the doubt but not Trump.

It's this little trick I do called reading your posts. You should try it sometime.

And what about my posts make them bias? Be specific.

I've no doubt apologists can come up with any number of excuses for Trump. It's what you guys do best.

Just like Biden and Harris apologists like you can come up with any number of excuses for Biden and Harris, as seen above. It's what you guys do best.

Apparently, you and I view reality differently. No surprise there, you defend Trump, I find him indefensible.

No surprise here either, you defend Biden and Harris, I find them indefensible.

Yeah. Then went on a tear about batteries and sharks that made no sense whatsoever.

Humorous hypothetical questions don't need to follow logic.

But it also pointed out that those who manufacture batteries for boats didn't forget that boats get wet sometimes, and took precautions against things like electrocution. Something that apparently skipped Donny's notice entirely. Maybe he thinks batteries and toasters are the same thing, who knows?

Trump has shown his ignorance of science before. No big deal.

What have we been talking about this whole time? I've given you examples of Trump's ignorance about science regarding batteries, and about Trump's ignorance of Revolutionary war history, to say nothing of his delusion that because he has an uncle that taught at MIT that means Donny himself is "very smart" or has a "relationship" with MIT. The man shows no hint that he knows just how little he knows. "Stable genius" indeed.

So far you have one example about Trump's ignorance of how batteries work and one that's in dispute if it's Trump's fault or a teleprompter mistake. Hardly the "over and over again" I was looking for.

If that's all you got, then that's all you wanted to get. Cosi cosa.

Or all there really is.

So? A few handpicked examples doesn't exactly show the whole picture, does it? If you want to make a definitive statement about the sheer number on both sides, you need an exhaustive, accurate accounting of both. That takes work, effort and commitment.

It show enough of the picture to make an educated guess that Biden and Harris are worse given people can find more gaffes from them than Trump.

I'm not the one claiming that...the defendants did that themselves. They said, under oath, they believed they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

But they never mentioned that specific quote which you claim contributed to what happened.

Do you do the same for those who criticize Biden or Harris? If you have, I'd be curious to see those posts, because somehow, I've missed them.

If it merits defending. For example there was a video going around claiming that Biden ignored a black girl, but I provided proof that he didn't ignore her.

Again, for the seventeenth time (at least), I never said that comment, and that comment alone, was the impetus for their actions. I mentioned others.

You keep saying " I never said that comment, and that comment alone". You are implying that comment had something to do with their actions. But you have not proved that comment had even a little bit to do with their actions at all.

I've shown you how many defendants have claimed, under oath, they were doing what they thought Trump wanted them to do. If you think every one of them is lying, you'll have to take it up with them, and their lawyers.

You have, but you haven't yet shown that specific comment by Trump contributed to what happened on Jan 6 as you were claiming.

Okay. All valid criticisms, and I'm not going to defend any of them. If you feel they outweigh the damage to the nation Trump's lies about the 2020 election, his attempts to demand election officials illegally "find" votes, his false electors scheme, as well as his attempts to circumvent taking responsibility for his crimes just because he was President for four years, as well as the damage caused by the crimes and frauds he's committed even before taking office, and other actions, that's your business. I disagree. Oh well.

Innocent people losing their lives due to the direct actions of people in power is objectively worse than anything you just listed. Unless you can find proof that Trump's action directly lead to the deaths of people, you just don't live in reality if you think those things are worse than people dying.

All the things you listed have mostly hurt Trump himself.

It does not,

Reality disagrees with you.

but since you continue to choose not to see that, that's all there is to say on the matter. I've done all I can do to make you see where you're wrong, I can't do more.

-- A2SG, I've herded enough cats to know how pointless it can be sometimes.....unless there's food involved.....

I chose to see the obvious that you can't prove a link between that comment and those peoples actions.

 

[MrMoe]

If you live near an oil refinery then you'll be exposed to one of the most common hydrocarbons - benzene. From here: PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT - Toxicological Profile for Benzene - NCBI Bookshelf

'Benzene in the air can also be deposited on the ground by rain or snow.'

Biden's full comment: "Guess what—the first frost, you know what was happening?" said Biden. "You'd have to put on your windshield wipers to get, literally, the oil slick off the window."

And from here (plus multiple other sites): Proximity to Oil Refineries and Risk of Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

'We observed that proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of incident cancer diagnosis across all cancer types.'

What proof is there that it caused Biden's 'non-melanoma' skin cancer as he claimed?

 

[Bradskii]

What proof is there that it caused Biden's 'non-melanoma' skin cancer as he claimed?

Who said it did? I'm just providing you with some facts. How you interpret them is your call.

 

[A2SG]

It's a Biden quote. He claimed the oil slick is the reason he had cancer.

The White House had to clarify the President had 'non-melanoma' skin cancer before taking office.

Okay. So it was a gaffe, just as I characterized it previously. Not the first time Joe Biden's done that kind of thing, probably won't be the last.

Was there a point you wanted to make about this?

He's old just like Biden who is prone to gaffes, yet you won't give Trump the benefit of the doubt that this was a gaffe and he simply missed the error. In other words, you have a double standard.

Wait....didn't you consider Biden's tendency toward gaffes a sign that he isn't mentally fit to be President? Why wouldn't that apply to Trump, if you now want to characterize his Revolutionary war error as a "gaffe," or are you sticking with blaming it on the teleprompter? Keeping in mind, of course, that all of this is coming from someone who claims to be a "stable genius." Surely, you're not using a double standard yourself, are you?

For my part, I admit to no double standard here. Come November 5, I won't be voting for Trump or Joe Biden. Fair enough?

Finally seeing what was obvious to millions for years.

Um, I said I knew he was prone to gaffes. I can remember people commenting on it back when he ran for President in 1988.

Nice spin but he didn't 5 twice. "five-five" is saying five twice. He specifically said "fifty five dollars", which is completely different to "5 percent".

Yeah, I know. It was sarcasm. But my point stands, misspeaking numbers or mixing up dollars with percentages isn't in the same ballpark as somehow thinking Washington's army took the airports in 1775, or reading that off a teleprompter and never realizing it was ridiculous.

Once again demonstrating your double standard of giving Biden and Harris the benefit of the doubt but not Trump.

Hey, if that's how you want to see it, then that's how you're gonna see it. Y'see what ya wanna see, am I right?

And what about my posts make them bias? Be specific.

Go back and read my posts...I've pointed out examples of your bias in favor of Trump, and your near-constant attempts to defend and excuse him more than few times already. The specifics are already on the record.

Just like Biden and Harris apologists like you can come up with any number of excuses for Biden and Harris, as seen above. It's what you guys do best.

Nice try. I've never even tried to apologize for or excuse anything Biden or Harris have said. Not even once. I've fully acknowledged that Biden tends to gaffe and ramble, and even wander off the subject from time to time, and I've also acknowledged that Harris can ramble on occasion too, and tends to evade direct answers to questions. I've never tried to excuse any of that. Did you catch this quote of mine from before, regarding Kamala Harris:

Vague, yes. Rambling, sure. Substantive, not really. All in all, it sounds like something any politician might have said at any time. You want to criticize her for saying a lot, but not actually saying anything, I'd agree.​

Funny things happen when you actually read what I've written. You tend to find I've addressed quite a lot of your points even before you make them.

No surprise here either, you defend Biden and Harris, I find them indefensible.

Except that I haven't defended them. A fact you might have picked up on if you'd bothered reading what I wrote instead of trying to be cute when you replied.

Humorous hypothetical questions don't need to follow logic.

Well, then, this one didn't follow logic spectacularly. It also was entirely and completely devoid of anything resembling a point, so....

Trump has shown his ignorance of science before. No big deal.

He's shown it plenty, but never seems to realize just how little he knows. You don't see that as a problem for the leader of the free world?

So far you have one example about Trump's ignorance of how batteries work and one that's in dispute if it's Trump's fault or a teleprompter mistake. Hardly the "over and over again" I was looking for.

How about this:

or this:

or these:

The Dumbest Moments of the Trump Presidency

For five years, we kept a Google Doc of the most deeply idiotic episodes of this monumentally stupid era. Now it’s time to share our work with the world.

slate.com

There's even a thread here that lists a bunch of them, you could participate in that and defend any or all of them:

The Top Ten Trump Lines

....direct quotes from Donald Trump - at various rallies, townhalls or interviews over the last several weeks: (courtesy of Will Saletan of The Bulwark) “Can you imagine you’re a parent, and your son leaves the house, and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much, go have a good day in school.’ And...

www.christianforums.com

Shall I continue?

Or all there really is.

Y'see what ya wanna see.

It show enough of the picture to make an educated guess that Biden and Harris are worse given people can find more gaffes from them than Trump.

Given my examples above, you still wanna cling to this? And that was all just a single page of a google search, I can only imagine what else is out there if I dug further.

But they never mentioned that specific quote which you claim contributed to what happened.

As I've said a bunch of times already, I never claimed that was the only thing he said. It was an example, and I've offered more at the time, and since. But you seem to have hyper-focused on that one quote as if it makes a point somehow. You're like a dog with a bone on this one.

If it merits defending. For example there was a video going around claiming that Biden ignored a black girl, but I provided proof that he didn't ignore her.

Good to know, must have missed that one.

You keep saying " I never said that comment, and that comment alone".

Yup, and one day, I hope to see evidence you've read it one of those times.

You are implying that comment had something to do with their actions.

Yeah, among others. At least, the defendants in several hundred criminal cases arising from events on January 6 have made that claim in court, under oath.

But you have not proved that comment had even a little bit to do with their actions at all.

You have, but you haven't yet shown that specific comment by Trump contributed to what happened on Jan 6 as you were claiming.

Innocent people losing their lives due to the direct actions of people in power is objectively worse than anything you just listed. Unless you can find proof that Trump's action directly lead to the deaths of people, you just don't live in reality if you think those things are worse than people dying.

As I said before, I disagree. Oh well.

All the things you listed have mostly hurt Trump himself.

Yeah, right. He and Harris are neck and neck in most polls...clearly, they've hurt him a lot.

Reality disagrees with you.

It really doesn't.

I chose to see the obvious that you can't prove a link between that comment and those peoples actions.

See, I don't have to, they did it for me.

-- A2SG, and it was darn nice of them, too.....

 

[MrMoe]

Okay. So it was a gaffe, just as I characterized it previously. Not the first time Joe Biden's done that kind of thing, probably won't be the last.

Was there a point you wanted to make about this?

It's more than a gaffe. It could potentially be an outright lie.

Wait....didn't you consider Biden's tendency toward gaffes a sign that he isn't mentally fit to be President? Why wouldn't that apply to Trump, if you now want to characterize his Revolutionary war error as a "gaffe," or are you sticking with blaming it on the teleprompter? Keeping in mind, of course, that all of this is coming from someone who claims to be a "stable genius." Surely, you're not using a double standard yourself, are you?

For my part, I admit to no double standard here. Come November 5, I won't be voting for Trump or Joe Biden. Fair enough?

It could have been a gaffe or it could be a mistake on the teleprompter. We can't be certain, since Trump hasn't given a clear answer and I doubt he will admit he has poor memory.

Um, I said I knew he was prone to gaffes. I can remember people commenting on it back when he ran for President in 1988.

Not talking about the gaffes but the "Maybe he shouldn't be running for another term, huh?" part. Millions of people have been saying that for
a while.

Yeah, I know. It was sarcasm. But my point stands, misspeaking numbers or mixing up dollars with percentages isn't in the same ballpark as somehow thinking Washington's army took the airports in 1775, or reading that off a teleprompter and never realizing it was ridiculous.

It's in the exact same ballpark. Both men were reading off a teleprompter, and both men never realized what they said was ridiculous.

Hey, if that's how you want to see it, then that's how you're gonna see it. Y'see what ya wanna see, am I right?

Not everything is subjective. It's not about how I "see it".

Go back and read my posts...I've pointed out examples of your bias in favor of Trump, and your near-constant attempts to defend and excuse him more than few times already. The specifics are already on the record.

Defending someone when they should be defended against someone's obvious double standard isn't showing bias.

Nice try. I've never even tried to apologize for or excuse anything Biden or Harris have said. Not even once. I've fully acknowledged that Biden tends to gaffe and ramble, and even wander off the subject from time to time, and I've also acknowledged that Harris can ramble on occasion too, and tends to evade direct answers to questions. I've never tried to excuse any of that. Did you catch this quote of mine from before, regarding Kamala Harris:

Vague, yes. Rambling, sure. Substantive, not really. All in all, it sounds like something any politician might have said at any time. You want to criticize her for saying a lot, but not actually saying anything, I'd agree.​

Funny things happen when you actually read what I've written. You tend to find I've addressed quite a lot of your points even before you make them.

And neither have I even tried to apologize for or excuse anything Trump has said. Not even once. I've fully acknowledged that Trump tends to gaffe and ramble, and even wander off the subject from time to time.

Except that I haven't defended them. A fact you might have picked up on if you'd bothered reading what I wrote instead of trying to be cute when you replied.

Using the "not as bad as" fallacy is a form of defense.

Well, then, this one didn't follow logic spectacularly. It also was entirely and completely devoid of anything resembling a point, so....

I gave you the point a few posts ago. The point was the question Trump asked the guy.

He's shown it plenty, but never seems to realize just how little he knows. You don't see that as a problem for the leader of the free world?

Not really. He will have people

How about this:

or this:

or these:

The Dumbest Moments of the Trump Presidency

For five years, we kept a Google Doc of the most deeply idiotic episodes of this monumentally stupid era. Now it’s time to share our work with the world.

slate.com

Like I said, Trump has shown his ignorance of science before. No big deal. This video is just a few more examples of that.

There's even a thread here that lists a bunch of them, you could participate in that and defend any or all of them:

The Top Ten Trump Lines

....direct quotes from Donald Trump - at various rallies, townhalls or interviews over the last several weeks: (courtesy of Will Saletan of The Bulwark) “Can you imagine you’re a parent, and your son leaves the house, and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much, go have a good day in school.’ And...

www.christianforums.com

Shall I continue?

Please do.


I found one of Biden claiming you won't get covid if you get the vaccine.

This is not true. No vaccine is 100% effective. Biden himself is a testament to this fact when he got covid after being vaccinated.

Given my examples above, you still wanna cling to this? And that was all just a single page of a google search, I can only imagine what else is out there if I dug further.

The videos and article above repeat several of the same examples, and others which aren't even gaffes, specifically in the Slate article.


Here's a good compilation of many of Biden's Dumbest quotes.

Joe Biden Stupid Quotes, Dumb Quotes, Funny - AllGreatQuotes

Enjoy the best online collection of Joe Biden's most stupid, funny and dumb quotes at AllGreatQuotes. Share with your friends.

www.allgreatquotes.com

I can only imagine what else is out there if I dug further.

As I've said a bunch of times already, I never claimed that was the only thing he said. It was an example, and I've offered more at the time, and since. But you seem to have hyper-focused on that one quote as if it makes a point somehow. You're like a dog with a bone on this one.

I'm hyper-focused on it because you're claiming it contributed to what happened, but so far have yet to prove it had anything to do with happened that day.

Yup, and one day, I hope to see evidence you've read it one of those times.


Yeah, among others. At least, the defendants in several hundred criminal cases arising from events on January 6 have made that claim in court, under oath.


View attachment 355033


View attachment 355034

How do you know that quote was part of those others?

As I said before, I disagree. Oh well.

You disagree that people being killed and dying is worse than a rich guy manipulating the system for his own personal gain?

Yeah, right. He and Harris are neck and neck in most polls...clearly, they've hurt him a lot.

Which tells me Americans don't think those things are as big a deal as you're making them out to be.

View attachment 355036

See, I don't have to, they did it for me.

-- A2SG, and it was darn nice of them, too.....

When did they do that?

 

[A2SG]

It's more than a gaffe. It could potentially be an outright lie.

I guess you could see it that way if you wanted to.

It could have been a gaffe or it could be a mistake on the teleprompter. We can't be certain, since Trump hasn't given a clear answer and I doubt he will admit he has poor memory.

Either way, not making the "stable genius" looking good there.

But, gee....y'know, to someone who doesn't know you very well, it might look like you're using a double standard here, one that excuses Trump for not knowing there weren't airports in 1775, but the other accusing Biden of lying. Now, I'm not accusing or anything, it just can look that way to someone else. Just sayin'.

Not talking about the gaffes but the "Maybe he shouldn't be running for another term, huh?" part. Millions of people have been saying that for a while.

Sure. People are like that, they say stuff.

It's in the exact same ballpark. Both men were reading off a teleprompter, and both men never realized what they said was ridiculous.

So, you think mixing up a couple of numbers is in the same ballpark as thinking George Washington's army took the airports in 1775? Wow, quite the ballpark you've got there, bud.

Not everything is subjective. It's not about how I "see it".

In this case, it most certainly is subjective. Now, we can grant that what kind of cancer Joe Biden has is an objective fact, and we can grant that George Washington's army did not take the airports during the Revolutionary War. But your interpretation of the motives behind Biden or Trump making statements contrary to those facts is entirely subjective.

Defending someone when they should be defended against someone's obvious double standard isn't showing bias.

There is no double standard on my part, but there does seem to be one on yours. You've criticized both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris quite a bit, and excused Trump for the same things you've criticized Biden and Harris for. That's a clear case of bias, and an almost textbook example of a double standard. Your choice, and I have no problem with you being as biased as you like...but when you criticize me for the same thing you're doing, despite my not doing it, well, I have no choice but to call you on it.

And neither have I even tried to apologize for or excuse anything Trump has said.

Tell me again what he meant about sharks and batteries. Oh, and why he thought Washington's army took the airports in 1775.

Not even once.

I just counted twice. Your math is off.

I've fully acknowledged that Trump tends to gaffe and ramble, and even wander off the subject from time to time.

Having fun there? Think this bit is working for ya?

Using the "not as bad as" fallacy is a form of defense.

It's not a defense, it's how I personally and subjectively view things. An opinion, to use the vernacular.

I gave you the point a few posts ago. The point was the question Trump asked the guy.

You mean this:

He said, “It’s a problem, sir. They want us to make all electric boats.” These are boats that are from 16 to 35 or so feet, fishing boats, leisure boats, beautiful company in South Carolina, beautiful. The guy’s been doing it for 50 years. He sells hundreds of boats every couple of months. I mean, really fantastic guy. ​

What's the question, exactly? And what point was he going for? And further, why on earth would a Las Vegas audience be interested in boat sales, electric or otherwise?

Not really. He will have people

But he doesn't seem willing to listen to them, does he?

But I suppose it's a good thing the experts don't listen to Trump, or they'd be suggesting ingesting disinfectant to cure covid or nuking hurricanes.

Like I said, Trump has shown his ignorance of science before. No big deal. This video is just a few more examples of that.

A lot more, in fact. And the hits just keep on coming. Wanna rethink your comparison between Trump and Harris now?

Please do.

Nah, I think the points been made.

I found one of Biden claiming you won't get covid if you get the vaccine.

This is not true. No vaccine is 100% effective. Biden himself is a testament to this fact when he got covid after being vaccinated.

Which I'm sure you'll be excusing, just like you excuse Donald Trump's ignorance of science. Wouldn't want to use a double standard there, wouldja?

The videos and article above repeat several of the same examples, and others which aren't even gaffes, specifically in the Slate article.


Here's a good compilation of many of Biden's Dumbest quotes.

Joe Biden Stupid Quotes, Dumb Quotes, Funny - AllGreatQuotes

Enjoy the best online collection of Joe Biden's most stupid, funny and dumb quotes at AllGreatQuotes. Share with your friends.

www.allgreatquotes.com

I can only imagine what else is out there if I dug further.

Yah, no double standards there, huh?

I'm hyper-focused on it because you're claiming it contributed to what happened, but so far have yet to prove it had anything to do with happened that day.

How do you know that quote was part of those others?

You disagree that people being killed and dying is worse than a rich guy manipulating the system for his own personal gain?

What I said:

Okay. All valid criticisms, and I'm not going to defend any of them. If you feel they outweigh the damage to the nation Trump's lies about the 2020 election, his attempts to demand election officials illegally "find" votes, his false electors scheme, as well as his attempts to circumvent taking responsibility for his crimes just because he was President for four years, as well as the damage caused by the crimes and frauds he's committed even before taking office, and other actions, that's your business. I disagree. Oh well.​

Which tells me Americans don't think those things are as big a deal as you're making them out to be.

Well, some don't. Which just goes to show it hasn't harmed Trump all that much. Now, were we to ever get to the point where Trump would have to serve a sentence for any of the crimes he's been proven guilty of, that might change...but so far, that day doesn't seem close to happening any time soon.

When did they do that?

During their trials, when they tried to use it as a defense.

-- A2SG, doesn't seem to have worked, though...

 

[MrMoe]

I guess you could see it that way if you wanted to.

If I wanted to ? I don't want to believe he's lying but it's a possibility.

Either way, not making the "stable genius" looking good there.

A person can be a genius and have a poor memory. They aren't intrinsically connected.

But, gee....y'know, to someone who doesn't know you very well, it might look like you're using a double standard here, one that excuses Trump for not knowing there weren't airports in 1775, but the other accusing Biden of lying. Now, I'm not accusing or anything, it just can look that way to someone else. Just sayin'.

Never accused Biden of lying.

So, you think mixing up a couple of numbers is in the same ballpark as thinking George Washington's army took the airports in 1775? Wow, quite the ballpark you've got there, bud.

Biden didn't just "mixing up a couple of numbers" her read 'percent' as 'dollars'. Those two words aren't even close to looking or sounding the same.

So, yeah, it's in the exact same ballpark.

In this case, it most certainly is subjective. Now, we can grant that what kind of cancer Joe Biden has is an objective fact, and we can grant that George Washington's army did not take the airports during the Revolutionary War. But your interpretation of the motives behind Biden or Trump making statements contrary to those facts is entirely subjective.

That comment wasn't about their motives but about you demonstrating an obvious double standard of willing to give Biden the benefit of the doubt but not Trump. That is not subjective.

There is no double standard on my part, but there does seem to be one on yours. You've criticized both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris quite a bit, and excused Trump for the same things you've criticized Biden and Harris for. That's a clear case of bias and an almost textbook example of a double standard. Your choice, and I have no problem with you being as biased as you like...but when you criticize me for the same thing you're doing, despite my not doing it, well, I have no choice but to call you on it.

Can you give an example of me excusing Trump for the same things you've criticized Biden and Harris for? Cause I don't recall doing any such thing.

Tell me again what he meant about sharks and batteries.

Already told you several times. He was talking about a hypothetical question he asked a worker he met. It seems you are unable to accept this answer because your anti-Trump bias won't allow it.

Oh, and why he thought Washington's army took the airports in 1775.

I don't know. I can only speculate. The same way I don't know why Biden said he got cancer from cleaning oil covered windshield wipers.

I just counted twice. Your math is off.

You consider giving possible explanations to why he said those things as apologizing or excusing? Well you just exposed yourself as a hypocrite because you've been doing the exact same thing regarding Biden and Kamala this entire conversation.

Having fun there? Think this bit is working for ya?

What are you on about?

It's not a defense, it's how I personally and subjectively view things. An opinion, to use the vernacular.

An opinion can still contain a logical fallacy, like yours.

You mean this:

He said, “It’s a problem, sir. They want us to make all electric boats.” These are boats that are from 16 to 35 or so feet, fishing boats, leisure boats, beautiful company in South Carolina, beautiful. The guy’s been doing it for 50 years. He sells hundreds of boats every couple of months. I mean, really fantastic guy. ​

What's the question, exactly? And what point was he going for? And further, why on earth would a Las Vegas audience be interested in boat sales, electric or otherwise?

I already gave you the question he asked. Here it is again since you seem to have such a poor memory. "Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?"

But he doesn't seem willing to listen to them, does he?

But I suppose it's a good thing the experts don't listen to Trump, or they'd be suggesting ingesting disinfectant to cure covid or nuking hurricanes.

In things that don't interest him, he seems willing to let his advisors do their job.


Like I just said, those examples are Trump showing his scientific ignorance.

A lot more, in fact. And the hits just keep on coming. Wanna rethink your comparison between Trump and Harris now?

No. We're talking about gaffes overall. And they come out on top.

Nah, I think the points been made.

Your point was that Trump supposedly has more gaffes, and that point is far from being made.

Which I'm sure you'll be excusing, just like you excuse Donald Trump's ignorance of science. Wouldn't want to use a double standard there, wouldja?


Yah, no double standards there, huh?

Do you excuse it. is what I want to know?

View attachment 355080


View attachment 355081

Given up on trying to defend your use of the post hoc logical fallacy?

What I said:

Okay. All valid criticisms, and I'm not going to defend any of them. If you feel they outweigh the damage to the nation Trump's lies about the 2020 election, his attempts to demand election officials illegally "find" votes, his false electors scheme, as well as his attempts to circumvent taking responsibility for his crimes just because he was President for four years, as well as the damage caused by the crimes and frauds he's committed even before taking office, and other actions, that's your business. I disagree. Oh well.​

That doesn't answer my question. Do you disagree that people being killed and dying is worse than a rich guy manipulating the system for his own personal gain? A simple yes or no answer would be great.

During their trials, when they tried to use it as a defense.

-- A2SG, doesn't seem to have worked, though...

And was that quote "fight like hell" a part of their defense?

 

[A2SG]

If I wanted to ? I don't want to believe he's lying but it's a possibility.

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible he simply misspoke, something he's been prone to do for decades. Again, you choose how you wish to view the reason why he said what he said.

A person can be a genius and have a poor memory. They aren't intrinsically connected.

Uh huh.

Never accused Biden of lying.

Not directly, no. That's why I said it might look that way, to someone who doesn't know you.

Biden didn't just "mixing up a couple of numbers" her read 'percent' as 'dollars'. Those two words aren't even close to looking or sounding the same.

So, yeah, it's in the exact same ballpark.

The words may not be similar, but the concepts are: both relate to numbers, and are often used in speeches by politicians. I'm just saying, it's a lot more of an understandable error than thinking there were airports in 1775...or reading that on a teleprompter and not realizing how ridiculous it was. So, no, I don't see them as being in the same ballpark at all. But you're free to do so, if you want to.

That comment wasn't about their motives but about you demonstrating an obvious double standard of willing to give Biden the benefit of the doubt but not Trump. That is not subjective.

Okay, you've thrown this one around a bit, and it's time I explained why I'm not using a double standard. I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet, but given your obvious bias, maybe you just choose not to see it.

The standard I use to view the actions and motivations of both Biden and Trump, and Harris as well, is the same: their past. Who they are, and what they've done before. Biden is a career politician, and has served in the Senate for decades. He's been in public service for most of his adult life. Because of this, I believe he has a firm commitment to public service, and does try to put the country's best interests over his own. I may not agree with every decision he's made in the Senate and after, and I may not agree with every stance he's taken, but I don't believe he's anything less than he seems: a generally good person who tries to do a good job for his country. Harris, similarly, has been in public service for years, both as a prosecutor and a senator, briefly. The skills one needs as a prosecutor are not the same as those needed for a politician, and given that she has less experience than someone like Biden does, that would account for her awkwardness when presenting herself on camera and in interviews. So, yeah, when gauging their words and actions, I will give both the benefit of the doubt that neither of them are calculating liars who are out for their own self-promotion instead of the country's best interests.

And that brings us to Trump. For his entire very public life, Donald Trump has been a grifter and a huckster. It's what he does, and what he's always done. He is all about self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, and he views his success at making money (whether accurate or not) as the primary goal of his life. There has never been a hint of a whiff of even a touch of public service about the man, ever. He has long had a propensity for lying about himself, his accomplishments and his successes, always making them out to be better than they really are. I mean seriously, how can anyone lose money running a casino? The man is bombastic, he's self-important, he's boastful and has no regard for the truth whatsoever.

None of that changed when he ran for president. But, when he ran and won the electoral college (but not the popular vote, let's not forget that), I figured he would simply be a forgettable, almost clownish president that history would simply laugh at and move on from. All that changed after he lost the 2020 election. This showed the man's true colors, he lost and he couldn't bear any public loss at all, which goes with his boastful demeanor all his life: Trump doesn't lose. Not even when he does. So he lied, constantly, claiming he actually won when he clearly didn't, and he never had even the slightest hint of a whiff of evidence to support his lies whatsoever. 60+ court cases thrown out for lack of evidence attest to this. But the truth has never mattered to Donny, so he pressed on, continuing the lie and riling up his base until the events of January 6 happened. I firmly believe his intent was to disrupt the proceedings and stay in power, despite losing the election, and his words on the Ellipse seem to bear that out. Many people who did storm the Capitol and were subsequently arrested for their crimes testified that they believe this is what Trump wanted them to do, so they did it.

So that's how I view the participants of this election. You may view them differently, of course, and you may give the benefit of the doubt to Trump and assume he has some other motive behind his actions than his own self-promotion or self-aggrandizement, but I do not. Because I haven't seen any hint of anything other than that in any of his actions for his entire life to date.

That's the standard I use. You're free to use another, but you will never convince me that Donald Trump has anything else on his mind than his own self-interest and his own ambition, and will put that before anything and everything else, including the country.

Can you give an example of me excusing Trump for the same things you've criticized Biden and Harris for? Cause I don't recall doing any such thing.

You've excused his rambling and his lack of knowledge on several occasions, including with airports during the Revolutionary War and with sharks and batteries, but you've criticized Harris and Biden for rambling and talking about cancer-causing oil and vague answers to interview questions.

But, keep in mind, I feel you have every right to criticize or defend anyone you want to. I simply disagree with your assessment. I have no problem with simply agreeing to disagree on this, because neither of us will convince the other to change their mind...and I have no desire to do that anyway.

Already told you several times. He was talking about a hypothetical question he asked a worker he met. It seems you are unable to accept this answer because your anti-Trump bias won't allow it.

Yeah, the hypothetical question was...what, again? That someone, somewhere, wants a boat salesman to manufacture only electric boats, for some reason? Still unclear on why this question was posed before a Las Vegas audience, though.

I don't know. I can only speculate. The same way I don't know why Biden said he got cancer from cleaning oil covered windshield wipers.

True enough. But, when you speculate, you find excuses for the huckster, but insinuate dishonesty from the career politician who has never shown a propensity for intentional deception, but has shown a propensity for misspeaking. Your bias, of course, and you're free to hold it if you wish. Just don't expect me to buy it.

You consider giving possible explanations to why he said those things as apologizing or excusing?

Yup.

Well you just exposed yourself as a hypocrite because you've been doing the exact same thing regarding Biden and Kamala this entire conversation.

Nope.

What are you on about?

Your schtick. You seem to be having fun with it.

An opinion can still contain a logical fallacy, like yours.

Except that it doesn't. It's only a post hoc fallacy if there's no connection between one action and what follows. I've shown the connection, and the context for it.

I already gave you the question he asked. Here it is again since you seem to have such a poor memory. "Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?"

A ridiculous question, given that boat batteries aren't toasters, and one that I fail to see has any relevance for Las Vegas voters.

In things that don't interest him, he seems willing to let his advisors do their job.

I did not see that in evidence during the pandemic. In fact, Trump seemed more willing to work against their advice, rather than listen to it.

Like I just said, those examples are Trump showing his scientific ignorance.

Something you and I are fully aware of...but he doesn't seem to be. Remember, he claims to be "very smart" and have some sort of relationship with MIT because an uncle taught there.

No. We're talking about gaffes overall. And they come out on top.

Well sure, if you put your finger on the scale, you'll come up with whatever measurement you want to.

Your point was that Trump supposedly has more gaffes, and that point is far from being made.

No, my point was that Trump's speeches contain gaffes, rambling stream of consciousness nonsense, also lies, boasts and embellishments, and at times, are completely divorced from reality. Biden gaffes, and Harris rambles.

Do you excuse it. is what I want to know?

Do I excuse Trump's ignorance of his own ignorance? No, not really. I think a leader should be fully aware of his own limitations...and I've seen no evidence that Trump acknowledges he even has any.

Given up on trying to defend your use of the post hoc logical fallacy?

Nah, just weary that you keep going on about something I've addressed dozens of times already.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you disagree that people being killed and dying is worse than a rich guy manipulating the system for his own personal gain? A simple yes or no answer would be great.

So would you getting the point for a change. But I guess we're both going to have to live with disappointment.

But, I have to wonder...what's your goal here? Are you trying to convince me that Trump isn't the grifter and huckster I've known him to be for decades? Or are you trying to convince me to not vote for Kamala Harris because she rambles a bit when she talks? What is your endgame, exactly?

And was that quote "fight like hell" a part of their defense?

-- A2SG, you're a good man, Charlie Brown....

 

[MrMoe]

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible he simply misspoke, something he's been prone to do for decades. Again, you choose how you wish to view the reason why he said what he said.

Yes, it's possible he misspoke, just like it's possible Trump misspoke when he said airports. I'm willing to give both men the benefit of the doubt, but you are only willing to give it to Biden. Double Standard.

Not directly, no. That's why I said it might look that way, to someone who doesn't know you.

Indirectly then? Would love for you to show me an example.


And you don't know me either.

The words may not be similar, but the concepts are: both relate to numbers, and are often used in speeches by politicians.

Flimsy excuse. I could easily say airports are related to war, and are often used in speeches by politicians.

I'm just saying, it's a lot more of an understandable error than thinking there were airports in 1775...or reading that on a teleprompter and not realizing how ridiculous it was.

Both men were reading off a teleprompter and neither realized how ridiculous it was.

So, no, I don't see them as being in the same ballpark at all. But you're free to do so, if you want to.

They're in the same ballpark no matter how desperately you try to split hairs.

Okay, you've thrown this one around a bit, and it's time I explained why I'm not using a double standard. I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet, but given your obvious bias, maybe you just choose not to see it.

The standard I use to view the actions and motivations of both Biden and Trump, and Harris as well, is the same: their past. Who they are, and what they've done before. Biden is a career politician, and has served in the Senate for decades. He's been in public service for most of his adult life. Because of this, I believe he has a firm commitment to public service, and does try to put the country's best interests over his own. I may not agree with every decision he's made in the Senate and after, and I may not agree with every stance he's taken, but I don't believe he's anything less than he seems: a generally good person who tries to do a good job for his country. Harris, similarly, has been in public service for years, both as a prosecutor and a senator, briefly. The skills one needs as a prosecutor are not the same as those needed for a politician, and given that she has less experience than someone like Biden does, that would account for her awkwardness when presenting herself on camera and in interviews. So, yeah, when gauging their words and actions, I will give both the benefit of the doubt that neither of them are calculating liars who are out for their own self-promotion instead of the country's best interests.

And that brings us to Trump. For his entire very public life, Donald Trump has been a grifter and a huckster. It's what he does, and what he's always done. He is all about self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, and he views his success at making money (whether accurate or not) as the primary goal of his life. There has never been a hint of a whiff of even a touch of public service about the man, ever. He has long had a propensity for lying about himself, his accomplishments and his successes, always making them out to be better than they really are. I mean seriously, how can anyone lose money running a casino? The man is bombastic, he's self-important, he's boastful and has no regard for the truth whatsoever.

None of that changed when he ran for president. But, when he ran and won the electoral college (but not the popular vote, let's not forget that), I figured he would simply be a forgettable, almost clownish president that history would simply laugh at and move on from. All that changed after he lost the 2020 election. This showed the man's true colors, he lost and he couldn't bear any public loss at all, which goes with his boastful demeanor all his life: Trump doesn't lose. Not even when he does. So he lied, constantly, claiming he actually won when he clearly didn't, and he never had even the slightest hint of a whiff of evidence to support his lies whatsoever. 60+ court cases thrown out for lack of evidence attest to this. But the truth has never mattered to Donny, so he pressed on, continuing the lie and riling up his base until the events of January 6 happened. I firmly believe his intent was to disrupt the proceedings and stay in power, despite losing the election, and his words on the Ellipse seem to bear that out. Many people who did storm the Capitol and were subsequently arrested for their crimes testified that they believe this is what Trump wanted them to do, so they did it.

So that's how I view the participants of this election. You may view them differently, of course, and you may give the benefit of the doubt to Trump and assume he has some other motive behind his actions than his own self-promotion or self-aggrandizement, but I do not. Because I haven't seen any hint of anything other than that in any of his actions for his entire life to date.

That's the standard I use. You're free to use another, but you will never convince me that Donald Trump has anything else on his mind than his own self-interest and his own ambition, and will put that before anything and everything else, including the country.

Their past should bear no relevance when applying standards equally.


Answer me this. Do you believe "guilty until proven innocent" should apply to everyone equally, or do you think some people shouldn't be allowed the presumption of innocence just based on the way they've behaved in the past?

You've excused his rambling and his lack of knowledge on several occasions, including with airports during the Revolutionary War and with sharks and batteries,

I'm giving you possible explanations, not giving you definitive answers. The same thing you are doing with Biden.



And I don't count two examples as "several".

but you've criticized Harris and Biden for rambling and talking about cancer-causing oil and vague answers to interview questions.

I'm asking you if you have a problem with them the same way you have with Trump.

Yeah, the hypothetical question was...what, again?

"Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?"

That someone, somewhere, wants a boat salesman to manufacture only electric boats, for some reason? Still unclear on why this question was posed before a Las Vegas audience, though.

It wasn't. He was telling them about the question he asked the guy. That's how storytelling works.

True enough. But, when you speculate, you find excuses for the huckster, but insinuate dishonesty from the career politician who has never shown a propensity for intentional deception, but has shown a propensity for misspeaking. Your bias, of course, and you're free to hold it if you wish. Just don't expect me to buy it.

"but insinuate dishonesty from the career politician who has never shown a propensity for intentional deception"

Boy does PolitiFact have news for you:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Biden indeed does show a propensity for intentional deception.

Yup.

So I guess you consider yourself a hypocrite since you give possible explanations regarding Biden and Harris.

Nope.

Yep. That's how logic works. If it's true for one it's true for the other.

Your schtick. You seem to be having fun with it.

It's kind of fun poking holes in your logic, I must admit.

Except that it doesn't. It's only a post hoc fallacy if there's no connection between one action and what follows. I've shown the connection, and the context for it.

But not with the specific "fight like hell" quote you claimed was connected. So far you have not made as single connection with that phrase Trump spoke and what happened at the capital.

A ridiculous question, given that boat batteries aren't toasters, and one that I fail to see has any relevance for Las Vegas voters.

I think is an unintentionally funny question.

He's telling a story. Why does it need to have relevance to the Las Vegas voters? Do Las Vegas voters not like candidates that tell humorous stories?

I did not see that in evidence during the pandemic. In fact, Trump seemed more willing to work against their advice, rather than listen to it.

Strange, I saw the exact opposite.

Something you and I are fully aware of...but he doesn't seem to be. Remember, he claims to be "very smart" and have some sort of relationship with MIT because an uncle taught there.

Signs of a narcissist, which Biden also shares.

Well sure, if you put your finger on the scale, you'll come up with whatever measurement you want to.

Don't need to, they've did it themselves.

No, my point was that Trump's speeches contain gaffes, rambling stream of consciousness nonsense, also lies, boasts and embellishments, and at times, are completely divorced from reality. Biden gaffes, and Harris rambles.

My point was that Biden's and Harris's speeches contain gaffes, rambling stream of consciousness nonsense, also lies, boasts and embellishments, and at times, are completely divorced from reality. Trump gaffes and rambles.

Do I excuse Trump's ignorance of his own ignorance? No, not really. I think a leader should be fully aware of his own limitations...and I've seen no evidence that Trump acknowledges he even has any.

No, that's not what I was asking.


What I was asking is, do you excuse what Biden said in this video?

Nah, just weary that you keep going on about something I've addressed dozens of times already.

You haven't. You keep dodging it by bringing up other stuff I have no issue with.

So would you getting the point for a change. But I guess we're both going to have to live with disappointment.

But, I have to wonder...what's your goal here? Are you trying to convince me that Trump isn't the grifter and huckster I've known him to be for decades? Or are you trying to convince me to not vote for Kamala Harris because she rambles a bit when she talks? What is your endgame, exactly?

My goal is to get a straightforward answer from you regarding this question.


Do you disagree that people being killed and dying is worse than a rich guy manipulating the system for his own personal gain?

View attachment 355204

-- A2SG, you're a good man, Charlie Brown....

Just as I thought. You've got no evidence. Hence it's a post hoc fallacy.

 

[A2SG]

Yes, it's possible he misspoke, just like it's possible Trump misspoke when he said airports. I'm willing to give both men the benefit of the doubt, but you are only willing to give it to Biden. Double Standard.

I explained why it isn't a double standard.

Indirectly then? Would love for you to show me an example.

Would you now?

And you don't know me either.

Well, insofar as your posting personality on these forums go, I kind of do. Granted, I don't know you personally off the internet. I'm sure, in person, you're a perfectly nice guy.

Flimsy excuse. I could easily say airports are related to war, and are often used in speeches by politicians.

You could. I wouldn't buy it, but you're free to do so.

Both men were reading off a teleprompter and neither realized how ridiculous it was.

Well, you must be better at knowing what each man realized than I am.

They're in the same ballpark no matter how desperately you try to split hairs.

Since you seem to really want to see it that way, I'll leave you to it.

Their past should bear no relevance when applying standards equally.

Really? So you'd trust Kevin Spacey or Jared from Subway to babysit your kids instead of, say, Anthony Field from the Wiggles?

Answer me this. Do you believe "guilty until proven innocent" should apply to everyone equally, or do you think some people shouldn't be allowed the presumption of innocence just based on the way they've behaved in the past?

I firmly believe in the presumption of innocence. Got a point there?

I'm giving you possible explanations, not giving you definitive answers. The same thing you are doing with Biden.

Nope. At most, I've said that Biden may have committed another gaffe, something he's been widely known for. You've offered explanations and excuses for Trump's wild journeys into stream of consciousness, bizarre fictional stories, outright fabrications and deliberate, intentional lies.

And, again, you've every right to do that. Just don't expect me to buy any of it.

And I don't count two examples as "several".

There have been more, but since I had just mentioned two in the previous bit, I figured it would help to point them out. I'm not going to wade my way through your past posts and find more examples, though, since I have a life.

I'm asking you if you have a problem with them the same way you have with Trump.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do not. Neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris have been proven guilty of fraud multiple times, found guilty of multiple felonies, nor have either of them tried to subvert the electoral process, directly or indirectly.

"Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?"

Yeah, a question every Las Vegas resident has asked every day of their life.

It wasn't. He was telling them about the question he asked the guy. That's how storytelling works.

Stories usually have a point to them.

"but insinuate dishonesty from the career politician who has never shown a propensity for intentional deception"

Boy does PolitiFact have news for you:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Everyone lies. But, as I've pointed out before, there is a massive difference in scale between Biden and Trump. Let's check the numbers again.

Biden: Pants on fire: 7; False: 64; Mostly false: 60. Total: 131.
Trump: Pants on fire: 201; False: 403; Mostly false: 205. Total: 809.

I'd say Trump has far, far more of a propensity for lying than Biden does.

Oh, and just for comparisons sake, since Biden isn't running for President any more:
Harris: Pants on fire: 0; False: 10; Mostly false: 15. Total: 25.

Biden indeed does show a propensity for intentional deception.

Tell you what, check out both men's entries, see exactly what lies they told, and get back to me. But, I'm guessing you're not going to do that, since there is no way Biden comes out worse than Trump. No way.

So I guess you consider yourself a hypocrite since you give possible explanations regarding Biden and Harris.

Nope. But you are free to call me any names you like, I've got a pretty thick skin and it all just rolls off my back.

Yep. That's how logic works. If it's true for one it's true for the other.

Except when it isn't. Compare the numbers again.

It's kind of fun poking holes in your logic, I must admit.

Well, you're trying to, anyway. Can't say much for your success rate, but it looks like you see things differently.

But not with the specific "fight like hell" quote you claimed was connected. So far you have not made as single connection with that phrase Trump spoke and what happened at the capital.

I think is an unintentionally funny question.

Can't argue with that, it was absurdly funny. Clowns can often be funny.

He's telling a story. Why does it need to have relevance to the Las Vegas voters? Do Las Vegas voters not like candidates that tell humorous stories?

I'm sure they do. Probably moreso when there's a point to the humor or the story. But I can't say what Trump supporters might think, no matter where they are.

Strange, I saw the exact opposite.

I've no doubt. We know you always try to see the positive side of Trump, no matter what. Must be hard work. ("Such strenuous living, I just don't understand. When in just seven days..." sorry, drifted off into song there....)

Signs of a narcissist, which Biden also shares.

Don't need to, they've did it themselves.

Uh huh.

My point was that Biden's and Harris's speeches contain gaffes, rambling stream of consciousness nonsense, also lies, boasts and embellishments, and at times, are completely divorced from reality. Trump gaffes and rambles.

Ah, still working on the schtick, I see. Have fun with that.

No, that's not what I was asking.

What I was asking is, do you excuse what Biden said in this video?

Haven't watched it, so I'll simply say no.

You haven't. You keep dodging it by bringing up other stuff I have no issue with.

Yeah, out this way, we call that "evidence."

My goal is to get a straightforward answer from you regarding this question.

Do you disagree that people being killed and dying is worse than a rich guy manipulating the system for his own personal gain?

You got all you're gonna get. Live with the disappointment.

Just as I thought. You've got no evidence. Hence it's a post hoc fallacy.

Hey, I've led you to water, dude. The drinking is your job.

-- A2SG, can't do it for you.....

 

[MrMoe]

I explained why it isn't a double standard.

Your explanation just confirms your double Standard.

Would you now?

Yes. Please provide one.

Well, insofar as your posting personality on these forums go, I kind of do. Granted, I don't know you personally off the internet. I'm sure, in person, you're a perfectly nice guy.

You've made assumptions about me that turned out to be wrong, so I doubt you know me as well as you think you do.

You could. I wouldn't buy it, but you're free to do so.

Likewise, I don't buy your flimsy explanation that the "concept" was the same, to try to save Biden from his completely divorced from reality comment.

Well, you must be better at knowing what each man realized than I am.

It's called observation. Neither man corrected their statement in the moment. That leads to the obvious conclusion that they didn't realize their mistake.

Really? So you'd trust Kevin Spacey or Jared from Subway to babysit your kids instead of, say, Anthony Field from the Wiggles?

Kevin Spacey was found not guilty. You don't believe the verdict?



Jared was found guilty and is in prison, and I have no idea what Anthony Field did. I don't follow The Wiggles.

I firmly believe in the presumption of innocence. Got a point there?

Doesn't seem like it by your previous comment which includes Kevin Spacey even though he was found not guilty.

Nope. At most, I've said that Biden may have committed another gaffe, something he's been widely known for. You've offered explanations and excuses for Trump's wild journeys into stream of consciousness, bizarre fictional stories, outright fabrications and deliberate, intentional lies.

And, again, you've every right to do that. Just don't expect me to buy any of it.

And you've offered explanations and excuses for Harris's wild journeys into stream of consciousness, Biden's bizarre statements, and their outright fabrications and deliberate, intentional lies.


Just below you state "Everyone lies". That's an example of you offering explanations and excuses for them.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do not. Neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris have been proven guilty of fraud multiple times, found guilty of multiple felonies, nor have either of them tried to subvert the electoral process, directly or indirectly.

Irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Yeah, a question every Las Vegas resident has asked every day of their life.

It wasn't directed at them. He was retelling a story.

Stories usually have a point to them.

Not all.

Everyone lies. But, as I've pointed out before, there is a massive difference in scale between Biden and Trump. Let's check the numbers again.

Biden: Pants on fire: 7; False: 64; Mostly false: 60. Total: 131.
Trump: Pants on fire: 201; False: 403; Mostly false: 205. Total: 809.

I'd say Trump has far, far more of a propensity for lying than Biden does.

Oh, and just for comparisons sake, since Biden isn't running for President any more:
Harris: Pants on fire: 0; False: 10; Mostly false: 15. Total: 25.

The 'not as bad as' fallacy

Also, the list doesn't account for the severity of the lie. Not all lies are equal.

Tell you what, check out both men's entries, see exactly what lies they told, and get back to me. But, I'm guessing you're not going to do that, since there is no way Biden comes out worse than Trump. No way.

They both lie. So both are equally bad. You seem to treat this like an Olympic competition, which is stupid.

Nope. But you are free to call me any names you like, I've got a pretty thick skin and it all just rolls off my back.

But you are. This is what I said : You consider giving possible explanations to why he said those things as apologizing or excusing?

And you replied: "Yup"


That means you're a hypocrite, since that's what you've been doing with Biden and Harris.

Except when it isn't. Compare the numbers again.

It is. They're both liars. It's true for one, it's true for the other.

Well, you're trying to, anyway. Can't say much for your success rate, but it looks like you see things differently.

The fact that you are now resorting to replying with pictures, I'd say my success rate is pretty good.

View attachment 355263

See above answer.

Can't argue with that, it was absurdly funny. Clowns can often be funny.

Just like Biden and Harris. With them it's unintentional though.

I'm sure they do. Probably moreso when there's a point to the humor or the story. But I can't say what Trump supporters might think, no matter where they are.

Yeah, the point is to make them laugh, which people did.

I've no doubt. We know you always try to see the positive side of Trump, no matter what. Must be hard work. ("Such strenuous living, I just don't understand. When in just seven days..." sorry, drifted off into song there....)

That's not true at all. I see negatives in Trump, some that I have pointed out to you. See, you don't know me as well as you think you do.

View attachment 355264

"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you" "I'd be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours"

Belief in superiority is a trait of narcissism.

Ah, still working on the schtick, I see. Have fun with that.

What schtick? Everything I mentioned has been demonstrated by Biden and/or Harris.

Haven't watched it, so I'll simply say no.

He says "You're not gonna get covid if you have these vaccinations".

Yeah, out this way, we call that "evidence."

Yet you still refuse to provide the evidence I'm asking for, which is the evidence that connects Trump's "fight" comment to what happened on Jan 6.

You got all you're gonna get. Live with the disappointment.

Strange. Most people would have no issue answering that basic question. Seems very heartless.

Hey, I've led you to water, dude. The drinking is your job.

-- A2SG, can't do it for you.....

You led me to a cartoon of a crying dog and a bald kid. What do you expect me to do with that?