• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax Day Trump Protest

As you confused yourself between the meaning of “accurate” and “reflective” in your own word usage, you don’t understand that from the same population there can be more than one “many”. For instance, saying “Many Trump supporters are still birthers” does necessarily mean to say there is a majority of Trump supporters that are birthers. Just like saying “She had many lonely nights” does not mean the “she” in question had a majority of her nights being lonely.

It’d be great if you could give me an example of an idiocy on the left. Not that I doubt of their existence, but that sweeping generalizations and blanket statements without giving a specific example and with some data to support the significance of that occurrence give nothing substantive to debate. Only claims that only visceral and emotional without any supporting fact that can be reasonably debated.

What have I said that makes you think I “…see one side of the street.”? It’s not my job to defend your “side” or make your case. I will admit to facts you present and points you make to which I can agree after substantiation. It’s up to you to show me the light of facts, reason and rational thought that I may “see” your claims and point you try to make.

The “many birthers” included “…and are the majority of the belief that Obama was a Muslim born out of this country?” I would appreciate your clarity as to your “No” answer applies to those two Y and/or N parts of the same question. Because, the majority of Trumpers do believe so.

I already gave you some. Let's just start with Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election.
 
I already gave you some. Let's just start with Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election.


That is the best example I can think of. One I've also agreed with before. The point being, I don't hear you agree with anything I've pointed out in our discussion. Nor refute any of the rest of what I pointed out in the same last post of mine. Back to your example. I agree with you that the claim is yet proved. But there are many facts that draw one’s attention to the logic of the argument for such a claim. The examples given regarding claims against Obama, personally, have no such basis in fact nor logic to begin with. What I am pointing out here is that while there are various idiocies on both sides, the idiocies are not necessarily in equivalency, either of frequency, severity, or facts relevant to the claim. And that is where which, I believe, we fail to draw out debate.
 
That is the best example I can think of. One I've also agreed with before. The point being, I don't hear you agree with anything I've pointed out in our discussion. Nor refute any of the rest of what I pointed out in the same last post of mine. Back to your example. I agree with you that the claim is yet proved. But there are many facts that draw one’s attention to the logic of the argument for such a claim. The examples given regarding claims against Obama, personally, have no such basis in fact nor logic to begin with. What I am pointing out here is that while there are various idiocies on both sides, the idiocies are not necessarily in equivalency, either of frequency, severity, or facts relevant to the claim. And that is where which, I believe, we fail to draw out debate.

One can make logic to any argument, no matter how ridiculous and unproven it is.
 
I don't know when Obama released his birth certificate. I'm sure it was well beyond the first 100 days. Do you know?

My guess are the people hoped to hear a different finding then was given. After all, 33% of Trump supporters still say Obama's birth certificate was fake, 41% say it was not, in a 09/29/16 poll after the certificate was released. Most people who were focused on the findings were those that thought Obama was a Muslim born out of this country. What do you think? Please answer.

I think the topic is past its sell date.

When it was still "fresh", it was a non-starter for me as a topic, but an interesting debating point. In the non-starter sense, the same as Trump's tax forms.

Whatever is in the tax returns really will make no difference in any way for any purpose. Same as the birth certificate fluff up.

The difference in the two topics is that the BC, if it turned out to be what the attackers said it was, would have been a disqualifier for the office. The tax return is just another debating point.

In the final analysis, what could the returns show that we don't already know?

According to CNN, the BC was released long after the election.

White House releases Obama?s birth certificate ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
One can make logic to any argument, no matter how ridiculous and unproven it is.


Your statement is not logical. Logic includes validation. The ridiculous and the unproven do not.

Again, you avoid responding to the substantive points I’ve raised directly to you. You really don’t know how to debate and do not even exhibit any ability to engage in knowledgeable discussion. If you can’t hold up your end of the debate by even responding to what is brought up to you, as I do for you, don’t expect me to waste much time on you. You only make lazy comments then avoid, runaway and hide from behind a rock when taking real fire.
 
Your statement is not logical. Logic includes validation. The ridiculous and the unproven do not.

Again, you avoid responding to the substantive points I’ve raised directly to you. You really don’t know how to debate and do not even exhibit any ability to engage in knowledgeable discussion. If you can’t hold up your end of the debate by even responding to what is brought up to you, as I do for you, don’t expect me to waste much time on you. You only make lazy comments then avoid, runaway and hide from behind a rock when taking real fire.

You haven't raised any substantive points, other than ridiculous ones. Please make up your mind whether ridiculous and unproven arguments should be taken seriously or not.
 
I think the topic is past its sell date.

When it was still "fresh", it was a non-starter for me as a topic, but an interesting debating point. In the non-starter sense, the same as Trump's tax forms.

Whatever is in the tax returns really will make no difference in any way for any purpose. Same as the birth certificate fluff up.

The difference in the two topics is that the BC, if it turned out to be what the attackers said it was, would have been a disqualifier for the office. The tax return is just another debating point.

In the final analysis, what could the returns show that we don't already know?

According to CNN, the BC was released long after the election.

White House releases Obama?s birth certificate ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


The Obama BC question was a false issue. It did not exist in the first place and did not require proof to know that. It was never a fact nor was there any evidence to point towards that possibility. The lack of relevant, publicized Trump tax returns is a fact.

As for “what could the returns show that we don't already know?”, there is nothing we “already know”.

I’ve given fact to refute what you say. What more do you have to say?
 
The Obama BC question was a false issue. It did not exist in the first place and did not require proof to know that. It was never a fact nor was there any evidence to point towards that possibility. The lack of relevant, publicized Trump tax returns is a fact.

As for “what could the returns show that we don't already know?”, there is nothing we “already know”.

I’ve given fact to refute what you say. What more do you have to say?

You have offered your opinion to refute my opinion. I don't know how you interpret the word "fact" but it is likely that you use the politically approved definition.

The Birth Certificate question was a question that had not been answered until it was answered. Obama chose to not answer it. Trump chooses to not answer the question regarding his tax returns. Exact parallel.

What do you expect Trump's tax returns to show? We know he has a whole big pile of money. We know he employed hundreds of people.

We know he employed lawyers and accountants who are probably employing every tactic they can find to preserve his wealth.

What else do you think might be exposed by the release of his returns?

Out of curiosity, there has never been any proof that trump worked with the Russians to "hack" the election and yet the Dems and their willing stenographers in the press seem to accept this as a fact. Why?
 
You haven't raised any substantive points, other than ridiculous ones. Please make up your mind whether ridiculous and unproven arguments should be taken seriously or not.


The substantive points I've raised are the facts I've used to argue against what you say is ridiculous and unproven. As I've already said, you've refused to address these facts. You avoid the subject of facts that go directly to your argument. If something you say is ridiculous or unproven, and facts are entered that say otherwise, then try to counter those facts by presenting your own. You won't do that, because you can't and do not have debate skills. You only have skills to throw an errant rock or two over you shoulder as you run away from the facts. By running away and stretching out this argument without replying to the points I've made with facts, you put those points into the watering-down of a more distant memory. You have no debate skills and you're lazy because you won't do the work it takes to come up with the facts you need to intelligently argue. Or, you're smart enough to know the facts aren't there.
 
The substantive points I've raised are the facts I've used to argue against what you say is ridiculous and unproven. As I've already said, you've refused to address these facts. You avoid the subject of facts that go directly to your argument. If something you say is ridiculous or unproven, and facts are entered that say otherwise, then try to counter those facts by presenting your own. You won't do that, because you can't and do not have debate skills. You only have skills to throw an errant rock or two over you shoulder as you run away from the facts. By running away and stretching out this argument without replying to the points I've made with facts, you put those points into the watering-down of a more distant memory. You have no debate skills and you're lazy because you won't do the work it takes to come up with the facts you need to intelligently argue. Or, you're smart enough to know the facts aren't there.

I guess that answers my question. You would rather use ridiculous and unproven arguments and call them facts.
 
You have offered your opinion to refute my opinion. I don't know how you interpret the word "fact" but it is likely that you use the politically approved definition.

The Birth Certificate question was a question that had not been answered until it was answered. Obama chose to not answer it. Trump chooses to not answer the question regarding his tax returns. Exact parallel.

What do you expect Trump's tax returns to show? We know he has a whole big pile of money. We know he employed hundreds of people.

We know he employed lawyers and accountants who are probably employing every tactic they can find to preserve his wealth.

What else do you think might be exposed by the release of his returns?

Out of curiosity, there has never been any proof that trump worked with the Russians to "hack" the election and yet the Dems and their willing stenographers in the press seem to accept this as a fact. Why?


“You have offered your opinion to refute my opinion. I don't know how you interpret the word "fact" but it is likely that you use the politically approved definition.”

A fact is something, an event, that has already taken place. It is real and true.

“The Birth Certificate question was a question that had not been answered until it was answered. Obama chose to not answer it. Trump chooses to not answer the question regarding his tax returns. Exact parallel.”

Your idea of an “exact parallel” is wrong. I already said, in so many words, you can’t draw a parallel between whether or not Obama was born in the US and whether or not Trump’s tax returns show his holdings and how he might benefit by what he does in office, like changes made in the tax code. It is accepted that Obama was born in the US, because that was already proven at birth by the US and need not be proven again. It has not been proven what I pointed out about Trump at any time. An “exact” parallel would be that Obama has not shown his tax returns and neither has Trump.

“What do you expect Trump's tax returns to show? We know he has a whole big pile of money. We know he employed hundreds of people.”

I don’t know what to expect. I am concerned, though, with what I raised above.

“We know he employed lawyers and accountants who are probably employing every tactic they can find to preserve his wealth.”

Yes, we know this. Just as the average American tries to reduce their tax liability every way they can.

“What else do you think might be exposed by the release of his returns?”

Already answered.

“Out of curiosity, there has never been any proof that trump worked with the Russians to "hack" the election and yet the Dems and their willing stenographers in the press seem to accept this as a fact. Why?”

The press does not report what you say as fact. Four out of ten Americans, including a majority of democrats, believe the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. That’s a matter of belief based on connecting the dots. Belief does not have to be based on fact. It is not a fact that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The "why" is that the Dems are simply connecting the dots as they see them. In fact, there are enough dots for the FBI to investigate that as being a potential crime.
 
Last edited:
I guess that answers my question. You would rather use ridiculous and unproven arguments and call them facts.


This is where things get idiotic. An argument is not a fact. I do not call arguments themselves, ridiculous and unproven or not, facts. You cannot show where I did. That is why you behave like an idiot. Or, perhaps, a paid troll. All you can do is distract from giving honest and direct responses to what I've raised and get further away from the facts you're afraid to face.
 
This is where things get idiotic. An argument is not a fact. I do not call arguments themselves, ridiculous and unproven or not, facts. You cannot show where I did. That is why you behave like an idiot. Or, perhaps, a paid troll. All you can do is distract from giving honest and direct responses to what I've raised and get further away from the facts you're afraid to face.

What facts have you raised?
 
What facts have you raised?


The ones I gave in prior post and identified as such. Go back, reread, and comprehend. If you do so and still can't find even one, let me know and I'll give you an example.
 
Back
Top Bottom