• 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!

GOP Must Dump Trump - Scarborough

Gaugingcatenate said:
Sorry bub, not letting you get away with what IS actually intellectual fraud, what you are doing...here is my original post with the definition of both felon and convicted felon as copied and pasted from Wikipedia.



No periods, a comma separating the two separate definitions as one is for felon and one is for convicted felon. Easy for even a 4th grader to read properly and generally understand. That would put you at below 4th grade reading level. Both uses of "is" should have alerted you to different circumstances leading to different identifications of felon versus convicted felon. Doing crime at the level of a felony makes you a felon and upon conviction for that crime you are a convicted felon.

And to answer your other question, if you commit a crime at the level of a felony, you are a felon, whether plea bargained out, not indicted, or even if only God knew, you are still a felon by definition if you commit a felony level crime.

Lord, one can understand only getting to a third grade level of reading comprehension... teachers have other students in the class that need attention... the amount of one on one time is not generally there to be spent... and with not getting it over and over and over and over... perhaps one can only reach the 3rd grade level. I know it is not your fault if you truly cannot understand, but a bit frustrating on this end as to its utter simplicity.
Click to expand...

Then why did YOU insert a period where a comma was suppose to be and tried to dishonestly pass it off as a complete sentence and end of the definition?

Your answer on knowing I am a felon makes no sense at all. If I do not even know if I am a felon - how in the world can anybody else know?

And if nobody knows how is it that the label is there at all since nobody including me knows it is there?

Your answer makes no sense in the real world.

This is just another right winger trying to vomit up far right wing talking points and getting aroused calling Clinton a felon.

Its pathetic and anyone who does it - and then goes to the fraudulent lengths you are going to here - is even more sad.

Your definition is so over broad and so without any real world limits or qualifiers that it is meaningless as anyone in the entire world of adult age could well be a FELON - even if they or nobody else knows it and that makes it just plain useless as a label and as a word to identify anyone.

Words are suppose to convey meaning ... they mean something .... and the way you define them robs them of their meaning rendering them so broad and without any identifying character as to render them useless.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Then why did YOU insert a period where a comma was suppose to be and tried to dishonestly pass it off as a complete sentence and end of the definition?

Your answer on knowing I am a felon makes no sense at all. If I do not even know if I am a felon - how in the world can anybody else know?

And if nobody knows how is it that the label is there at all since nobody including me knows it is there?

Your answer makes no sense in the real world.

This is just another right winger trying to vomit up far right wing talking points and getting aroused calling Clinton a felon.

Its pathetic and anyone who does it - and then goes to the fraudulent lengths you are going to here - is even more sad.
Click to expand...
Yes, when you still did not understand it I later broke the sentence down into its component parts trying to explain to you the two separate definitions... so I took the one [hoping you would understand, but you did not ] and then the other.

I am done trying to teach those that prove themselves incapable of elementary understanding. But if you think folks are going to look at that after finding you that slow in the one area of comprehension but then take your word/analysis of something else... well, as Coulter put it so aptly, if Democrats had any brains they would be Republicans. Proof here on DP.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, when you still did not understand it I later broke the sentence down into its component parts trying to explain to you the two separate definitions... so I took the one [hoping you would understand, but you did not ] and then the other.

I am done trying to teach those that prove themselves incapable of elementary understanding. But if you think folks are going to look at that after finding you that slow in the one area of comprehension but then take your word/analysis of something else... well, as Coulter put it so aptly, if Democrats had any brains they would be Republicans. Proof here on DP.
Click to expand...

from my post #46 which you have not refuted and stands

just google the following: DEFINITION FELON. Here is what you get

fel·on1
ˈfelən/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has been convicted of a felony.
synonyms: convict, crook, criminal, outlaw; More
Click to expand...

You were done the minute you engaged in far right win hyperbole and then tried to fraudulently lie about it.

Why can't you answer a simple question. You claim that a FELON is anybody who has committed a felony regardless of conviction or not. So how do I or anyone else know if they have committed a felony?
 
haymarket said:
Then why did YOU insert a period where a comma was suppose to be and tried to dishonestly pass it off as a complete sentence and end of the definition?

Your answer on knowing I am a felon makes no sense at all. If I do not even know if I am a felon - how in the world can anybody else know?

And if nobody knows how is it that the label is there at all since nobody including me knows it is there?

Your answer makes no sense in the real world.

This is just another right winger trying to vomit up far right wing talking points and getting aroused calling Clinton a felon.

Its pathetic and anyone who does it - and then goes to the fraudulent lengths you are going to here - is even more sad.

Your definition is so over broad and so without any real world limits or qualifiers that it is meaningless as anyone in the entire world of adult age could well be a FELON - even if they or nobody else knows it and that makes it just plain useless as a label and as a word to identify anyone.

Words are suppose to convey meaning ... they mean something .... and the way you define them robs them of their meaning rendering them so broad and without any identifying character as to render them useless.
Click to expand...
Good lord dude, never, ever post to me again.

You simply cannot understand plain English, I explained it to you like were a six year old and still... zilch. My head will explode by going any further with this idiocy. You have not the ability to understand simple definitions, how could you ever hope to fathom what is going on in the real world, most especially in politics.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Good lord dude, never, ever post to me again.

You simply cannot understand plain English, I explained it to you like were a six year old and still... zilch. My head will explode by going any further with this idiocy. You have not the ability to understand simple definitions, how could you ever hope to fathom what is going on in the real world, most especially in politics.
Click to expand...

This is a simple definition from my post #46 which you have not refuted and stands

just google the following: DEFINITION FELON. Here is what you get

fel·on1
ˈfelən/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has been convicted of a felony.
synonyms: convict, crook, criminal, outlaw; More
Click to expand...


You were done the minute you engaged in far right win hyperbole and then tried to fraudulently lie about it.
 
tres borrachos said:
When was Scarborough ever "pro-Trump"?
Click to expand...

He was doing some serious ass kissing some months back, then abruptly changed.

He stated getting **** for his pro-Trump BS and changed his position.

Remember that he is a Republican.
 
SMTA said:
He was doing some serious ass kissing some months back, then abruptly changed.

He stated getting **** for his pro-Trump BS and changed his position.

Remember that he is a Republican.
Click to expand...

I know he's a Republican. I've been watching his shows for years. He was never pro-Trump as a candidate. He has always made that very clear. He knows Trump socially, but he never supported his candidacy. Still doesn't.
 
tres borrachos said:
I know he's a Republican. I've been watching his shows for years. He was never pro-Trump as a candidate. He has always made that very clear. He knows Trump socially, but he never supported his candidacy. Still doesn't.
Click to expand...

Then I stand corrected.

I stopped watching him when he started his anti-gun rhetoric.
 
SMTA said:
Then I stand corrected.

I stopped watching him when he started his anti-gun rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I was going to give up on him then myself, but I enjoy getting aggravated over Mika, who is just a useless tool. I tried Fox and Friends, but my IQ dropped 5 points every time I tuned in. Morning Joe does have great guests.
 
tres borrachos said:
I was going to give up on him then myself, but I enjoy getting aggravated over Mika, who is just a useless tool. I tried Fox and Friends, but my IQ dropped 5 points every time I tuned in. Morning Joe does have great guests.
Click to expand...

Yup, agreed!
 
Mr Person said:
Good lord dude, never, ever post to any of us again.
Click to expand...
More than happy to oblige, all you blowhards never truly debate anyhow. At best you lie and obfuscate as haymarket above, most of you just sling worthless lines that show your empty arrogance by complete disinterest in facts, in definitions, in laws, in principles. Sometimes the product you put out is just sooooo stupid, so far beyond naive ignorance, that its hard to hold ones tongue from giving the lashing you deserve... but the kicker is that I have never had a decent debate with any of you three...

So yes, don't post to me...you can certainly rely on me never wasting my time with any of you.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
More than happy to oblige, all you blowhards never truly debate anyhow. At best you lie and obfuscate as haymarket above, most of you just sling worthless lines that show your empty arrogance by complete disinterest in facts, in definitions, in laws, in principles. Sometimes the product you put out is just sooooo stupid, so far beyond naive ignorance, that its hard to hold ones tongue from giving the lashing you deserve... but the kicker is that I have never had a decent debate with any of you three...

So yes, don't post to me...you can certainly rely on me never wasting my time with any of you.
Click to expand...

It's a shame you couldn't find a single fact to post.

We are faced with two disastrous candidates. One is a liberal Democrat running on the Democrat ticket and the other is a liberal Democrat running on the Republican ticket. But, if the Republicans were to refuse to run Mr. Trump they have alternatives. The Democrat Party is stuck with Sen. Clinton. I honestly don't know who they could run in her place.
 
tres borrachos said:
Scarborough is absolutely correct. As a lifelong Republican, I tend to gravitate to the GOP candidate in any election. I have, however, voted for the Democratic candidate in a few instances when I know the Republican candidate is absolutely wrong for the job, for any number of reasons. There's no question the Republicans can count on a voter like me. And I know there is absolutely no way I would ever, ever vote for someone like Donald Trump, who is 1) not even a real Republican, 2) an extreme danger to this nation, and 3) giving all appearances of a man who is determined to destroy the party. How any real Republican voter fails to see what I see and what Scarborough sees and what many others see is beyond me.

Hillary Clinton is the second worst candidate of my lifetime. Donald Trump is the worst. Yes, Donald Trump is worse than Hillary Clinton. In my wildest dreams I never thought I'd say any candidate was worse than she is. That is just how bad Trump is.

My choices are a dishonest and too-entitled Democratic candidate, or a dishonest, divisive, crazed Democrat with an "R" next to his name. How in the hell did this happen?

The GOP need to get used to the idea of a President named Hillary, focus on keeping the House, Senate and Governerships, and disavow this man sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Vote for Gary Johnson. He isn't a crook, and he isn't a psychopath.
 
Patrickt said:
It's a shame you couldn't find a single fact to post.

We are faced with two disastrous candidates. One is a liberal Democrat running on the Democrat ticket and the other is a liberal Democrat running on the Republican ticket. But, if the Republicans were to refuse to run Mr. Trump they have alternatives. The Democrat Party is stuck with Sen. Clinton. I honestly don't know who they could run in her place.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you even talking about, " couldn't find a single fact to post"??? Why would you want to lie and smear like that? If you had even a smidgen of truth or debate blood in you, you would have taken on any single thing I posted and taken it apart if you could, like one does, or is supposed to do, on a debate site.

Everything I posted to the last poster from which you jumped into the conversation to quote me was true and accurate, for one. So, right there is flat out lie number one identified which in effect destroys your entire post. So you are saying the definition I provided, with source, of the word felon is incorrect, that a person who commits a valid felony is not a felon, whether convicted or not, you are saying that fact is wrong and would rather go with the stupidity that I destroyed to the satisfaction of everyone sane aged 10 and above???

You are not a conservative, being as you just play one on a website. The "Republicans refuse to run Mr. Trump" have alternatives? Are you an elitist or what? That also is not conservative. If the people and delegates choose someone, no matter what you and the establishment want, that is our Republican candidate and I, for one of many, by a factor of one thousand times would rather have Trump than Hillary... and so you promote Hillary over Trump as Johnson and other "alternatives", except as spoilers, do not even factor into the equation.

What do you mean you don't know who they could find to run in her, Clinton's, place? Bernine Sanders legitimately ran in opposition, he was credibly undermined by the establishment, as well as the DNC and Hillary, an establishment that you favor in both cases. Sanders would be the rightful heir to her collapsed coronation.
 
Kobie said:
As generally irritating as I find Scarbro, he's right. However, any criticism of Trump from anyone who is considered part of "the establishment" only serves to galvanize his legion of idiots. These are people who are proud of being ignorant, who regard facts as anathema, who think anything is fine as long as it's not Hillary Clinton. We are on the precipice of disaster, and that disaster is not Hillary Clinton. It's Donald J. Trump, the closest thing to a fascist cult of personality I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

I still suspect that Trump is a Clinton plant. No one could be as incompetent as Trump and be financially successful.
 
danarhea said:
Vote for Gary Johnson. He isn't a crook, and he isn't a psychopath.
Click to expand...

How does it feel to be on the same page as a Fundamental Christian?
 
Michael Steele

This is all part of the process,” he said. “This has to happen. This confrontation with ourselves.” That confrontation involves the GOP realizing that it has itself to blame for the destructive rise of Trump. “n large measure, we laid down the metrics and pathway for Donald Trump to emerge and to arise the way he did,” Steele said. “He understood the GOP better than the GOP understood itself.” Steele contends that because trust between the party and its base is gone, “[T]his confrontation within the party is something that is long overdue.”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-card-c:homepage/story&utm_term=.3271a5fc7ebf

THis guy has been right about Trump more than most all along, which comes as a surprise to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom