• 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!

Trump to host G7 at his own Florida resort property

marke said:
Democrat definition of truth: Whatever a democrat shepherd says to his democrat cult flock.

Democrat definition of a lie: Whatever a republican says, even it a democrat once said the same thing first.
Click to expand...
To defend Trump’s near constant lying as just bad definitions of lying by Democrats is unfaithful to the truth on its own. Trump lies big and small and has no equal among other politicians.
 
MTAtech said:
To defend Trump’s near constant lying as just bad definitions of lying by Democrats is unfaithful to the truth on its own. Trump lies big and small and has no equal among other politicians.
Click to expand...

Democrat idea of a lie: Whatever Trump says.
 
Nalu said:
Once again, if you have some evidence that informs your conclusion, please share it. From everything I know, it is just as likely that Trump is delusional and accidentally saying untrue things as it is that he is not delusional and intentionally saying untrue things. Perhaps the distinction matters to you in the case of Trump. It doesn't matter to me and I am not regretful about calling his falsehoods lies.
Click to expand...

The difference between calling "reality deficient" statements "lies" and calling them "delusions" really is only in the degree of culpability to assign to the person making the statements.

Regardless of the degree of culpability that a person who makes "reality deficient" statements bears, the statements are STILL "reality deficient".

However, I can say, without any doubt whatsoever, that Mr. Trump's tweet of

....

which he made last Saturday contains not a single (even slightly) "reality deficient" statement and I am 100% sure that not a shred of contrary evidence will ever be found to contradict it no matter how hard anyone tries and no matter what their motives are.
 
marke said:
Democrat definition of truth: Whatever a democrat shepherd says to his democrat cult flock.

Democrat definition of a lie: Whatever a republican says, even it a democrat once said the same thing first.
Click to expand...

Well, you got HALF the situation correct.

You forgot


"Republican" (whatever that means) definition of "truth": Whatever a "Republican" (whatever that means) shepherd says to his "Republican" (whatever that means) cult flock even if they said the exact opposite yesterday.

"Republican" (whatever that means) definition of "a lie": Whatever a "Democrat" (whatever that means) says, even it a "Republican" (whatever that means) once said the same thing first (NOTE - Subject to change, see definition of "truth" above).
​
 
marke said:
Democrat idea of a lie: Whatever Trump says.
Click to expand...

Statistically speaking that is a better definition than


"Truth" - Whatever Mr. Trump says it is at any given moment and regardless of whatever he said it was previously and without any effect whatsoever on what he will say it is in the future.​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Well, you got HALF the situation correct.

You forgot


"Republican" (whatever that means) definition of "truth": Whatever a "Republican" (whatever that means) shepherd says to his "Republican" (whatever that means) cult flock even if they said the exact opposite yesterday.

"Republican" (whatever that means) definition of "a lie": Whatever a "Democrat" (whatever that means) says, even it a "Republican" (whatever that means) once said the same thing first (NOTE - Subject to change, see definition of "truth" above).
​
Click to expand...

Joe Biden, August 2019, Iowa State Fair: "We choose truth over facts."
 
ClaraD said:
No, what we have are reputable witnesses all saying the same thing...your desperation to defend Trump and ignore betrayal of the country is noted
Click to expand...

Sorry, reputable still doesn't mean correct. So you're attempt at playing this idiotic game is still shy of the target.
 
ClaraD said:
Actually it does, especially considering we usually believe witnesses who are reputable and under oath
Click to expand...

So given the fact that his statement is his own assumption of the call, and when compared to the transcript, no wrongdoing of note can be found. It does not look like the democrats chances are getting any better.

He's going to be asked what bout the phone call worried him and then he's going to say what it was. So now you should hope that he doesn't deviate from what is being said in the call, or else we'll know that he's lying. Especially if the full transcript gets released to the committee and he get's caught not actually knowing what was said in the conversation, even remotely to a degree of reasonable verbatim.
 
Oborosen said:
Sorry, reputable still doesn't mean correct.
Click to expand...

Indeed, why some people are totally unable to follow the logic behind

  1. It walks like a duck,
  2. It talks like a duck,
  3. It looks like a duck,
  4. It went to school with ducks,
  5. It's parents were ducks,
  6. It hangs around with ducks,
    THEREFORE the inescapable conclusion is that
  7. It is a rhinocerous.


Oborosen said:
So you're attempt at playing this idiotic game is still shy of the target.
Click to expand...

Some people simply cannot recognize a target even if it has a sign that says


[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 300"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]THIS
--> IS A <--
TARGET[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​


on it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, why some people are totally unable to follow the logic behind

  1. It walks like a duck,
  2. It talks like a duck,
  3. It looks like a duck,
  4. It went to school with ducks,
  5. It's parents were ducks,
  6. It hangs around with ducks,
    THEREFORE the inescapable conclusion is that
  7. It is a rhinocerous.




Some people simply cannot recognize a target even if it has a sign that says


[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 300"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]THIS
--> IS A <--
TARGET[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​


on it.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there are animals that spend nearly their entire life cycle mixed in with other entirely different animals, correct?

I'm getting tired of this pathetic game.
Do you actually have a point, or not?
 
ClaraD said:
Actually it does, especially considering we usually believe witnesses who are reputable and under oath
Click to expand...

Reputable witnesses under oath have said that Ukrainians conspired with American democrats in 2016 on Hillary's behalf. That current testimony had just been released when Trump asked the president of Ukraine for more information. The whole whistleblower ruckus is just a lie invented by democrats desperately seeking to crush any interest in that unfolding fact.
 
marke said:
Reputable witnesses under oath have said that Ukrainians conspired with American democrats in 2016 on Hillary's behalf. That current testimony had just been released when Trump asked the president of Ukraine for more information. The whole whistleblower ruckus is just a lie invented by democrats desperately seeking to crush any interest in that unfolding fact.
Click to expand...

Oh bull hockey
 
Oborosen said:
So given the fact that his statement is his own assumption of the call, and when compared to the transcript, no wrongdoing of note can be found. It does not look like the democrats chances are getting any better.

He's going to be asked what bout the phone call worried him and then he's going to say what it was. So now you should hope that he doesn't deviate from what is being said in the call, or else we'll know that he's lying. Especially if the full transcript gets released to the committee and he get's caught not actually knowing what was said in the conversation, even remotely to a degree of reasonable verbatim.
Click to expand...

We don't have the transcript
 
Trump said:
Did you have a problem with Obama selling millions of books while he was President? I didn't

Do I care if government business gets conducted at a Trump property ....if they are charging above and beyond normal rates....yes that's a problem ....but that's a problem with any location.

They vetted it and there is no problem with rules and laws.

I know this will never be acceptable to Dems...oh well....as George Soros says...Move On:lol:
Click to expand...

What a collection of misleading claims and rationalizations!

You don’t have a problem with Obama profiting from book sale! How generous of you!

Of course, he didn’t write or publish one while he was in office, something you chose to omit in order to make a false equivilancy.

And Obama put his business interests in a real blind trust, not in a shell arrangement that gave him 100% of the profits and real time authority over the people running it.

As for Trump soaking you, the taxpayer, for triple priced hotel rooms and fat checks that go into the pockets of Trump, well that’s OK, because who cares whose pocket the money goes into.

Trumpster reasoning. Trump can soak you and be a criminal, because he’s your kind of con man.
 
Oborosen said:
You do realize that there are animals that spend nearly their entire life cycle mixed in with other entirely different animals, correct?
Click to expand...

I see the concept "analogy" is one that was taught on one of the days that you missed school.

Oborosen said:
I'm getting tired of this pathetic game.
Click to expand...

A comment frequently heard from "competitors" of low skill.

Oborosen said:
Do you actually have a point, or not?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I have made it frequently. That you have missed it repeatedly does not mean that I have to repeat it again.

However, being a kindly, understanding, mild-mannered, and helpful fellow, I will repeat it again:


Either

  1. the facts are what the facts are
    *
    or
    *
  2. Mr. Trump is - indeed - "The Second Coming" and everything that anyone has ever said that was in the least bit non-laudatory is a complete lie instigated by the Devil.

I go with Option 1 even if you don't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom