TrueBlue4ever

Gordon Gecko and some dude In a space suit each handed me a Pilsner and asked me to keep an eye on them for a bit, said they had something to do.

Interesting logic there - all theories are true, regardless of lack of evidence, and it’s the job of the skeptic to disprove it, not the job of the theorist to justify their theory, it must be inherently accepted unless definitively disproven. So even though the hard data available solidly discredits your 90% claim, unless I can show that the data in existence is ALL the data in existence, you can claim that the speculative and so far undiscovered data would support your assumption, and since I can’t disprove it your hypothesis wins out (the “disprove a negative” approach). OK, let me dip my toe into that rabbit hole you’d like me to go down. If I heard a rumour that Pigseye likes having sex with barnyard animals - I mean come on, his board name is “Pigseye”, so that’s gotta be a dead giveaway that this guy likes to ride the hog, if you know what I mean - then that hypothesis is inherently true unless you could definitively disprove it. I mean, I’m not saying I have proof Pigseye likes to sodomize razorbacks, I’m just saying there’s no evidence out there that he doesn’t, and so if that rumour was out there, then it’s totally on him to disprove that embarrassing allegation. Because you can only disprove the hypothesis. So good luck with that one.

The relevant section in the report: In the case of Alex Azar, he did go to the president in January. He did push past resistance from the president's political aides to warn the president the new coronavirus could be a major problem. There were aides around Trump - Kellyanne Conway had some skepticism at times that this was something that needed to be a presidential priority. But at the same time, Secretary Azar has not always given the president the worst-case scenario of what could happen. My understanding is he did not push to do aggressive additional testing in recent weeks, and that's partly because more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear - the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall.

Actually, 22% is only the criminal aspect. For all 3 factors, only W and Trump meet your Google search criteria. That equates to 4%, not 22, and certainly not 90. And saying "well they cover it up so really the 4% proven is the same as my undocumented assumption of 90%, so I must be right" is a flat out falsehood. Your assumption isn't evidence, it's bullsh*t. You may be "fine" with it, but it doesn't make it at all true, or even remotely proven. So stop peddling it or back it up with hard facts, Mr. ready to have a debate.

The only claim I've asked Pigseye to defend right now is the one where 90% of all presidents are racist, sexual abuser, criminal morons.

OK, so in addition to the list of 11 other racist presidents (27%, not 90%), you offered a list of 7 presidents other than Trump accused of sexual "misconduct" that could rise to the level of sexual abuse/assault, and a second list that added 10 more to the list (if you consider having a consensual affair outside of your marriage as sexual abuse), so the percentage is either 18% at the low end or 40% at the high end. Again, not close to the 90% you claim (and again, factoring in only the sexual conduct, not the combination of all factors). As for criminality, your source only focusses on those who abused the constitution, so if that is your criteria (your source, remember) then you have a total of 6 presidents other than Trump listed (surprisingly, none of the 3 other presidents who were impeached or set to be - Andrew Johnson, Clinton, Nixon - were in that list). So, if I add those three then we have a total percentage of 22%. Way off of 90% yet again. And if we cross reference the 3 categories for a common name in all categories (and I haven't yet bothered to include the "moron" accusation, and just off the top of my head Trump's "windmills cause cancer" claim could be used as one quantitative example of stupidity for him) we get the following list of presidents who meet the trifecta of racist/sex abuser/criminal moron you say make up 90% of all presidents to imply that Trump is normal: 1. George W Bush (others can decide if he fits the "moron" category, I have my opinions) 2. FDR (only if you consider a consensual extra-marital affair as sexual abuse/assault) (and not sure I have much evidence of stupidity from this president off hand) So you asked when I want you to stop? When you either justify your 90% claim or retract it. I will accept your silence on the matter for 7 days from this posting as a default retraction and admission of trolling behaviour.

It may have to be if Nash and Minny keep up their pace. Calgary may also backslide into the wild card chase.

I thought that was J Edgar Hoover. Huh....

Well, your case was 90%, so now that it is 27% it is hardly rested, unless you've conceded the wild exaggeration from the beginning. I'll accept that all presidents have power and make decisions for national interests that would be considered morally unethical if not criminal if undertaken by the average citizen, but the qualification was "moronic criminal" (I've even left out the "dangerous" qualifier for you). So who was the moron? And show me the documented cases of butt pinch/slap/harassment that would rise to the level of serial sex abuser like the standard Trump is being held to. Remember, you want to normalize and dismiss Trump's behaviour by saying 90% of presidents were like that, so you have to back up that claim. Not enough to say "I'm sure it happened, so there is my evidence, case closed" unless you want the judge to come back with a verdict against your client for lack of evidence. Show your work, please, or retract your 90% claim as trolling.

Pigseye: Also Pigseye: Again, Pigseye: "when you grow up and prove that you can actually debate the topic." And also Pigseye:

OK, so on the stand alone "racist" card we are down from 90% to under 27%. So now please add the "serial sex abuser" and criminal moron" factors. Remember, Trump hit all 3 criteria in that subjective post, and since you said it fits 90% of all US presidents you inherently agree with that characterization of Trump as all 3, and just want to normalize it. So, of the list of 11 others, who is the serial sex abuser as well? George W? Wilson? Reagan? One divorce does not make a serial sex abuser, IMO. Who is also the moron? FDR? Jefferson? Eisenhower? Please bother with the rest of your subjective qualifications, since you are willing to debate "if we grow up". Or retract your claim.

So you didn't read it?

Saying "I'd quote sources but you'd reject them so I won't bother" is not fostering discussion.

So I am only asking you to offer your subjective opinion. There are things you can point to back up your "best guess" claim, like JFK's affair or Clinton's and other claims when he was governor that they were serial sex abusers (but you'd still have the dangerous moron criminal and racist hills to climb) or George W's non-response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as an example of a "racist" response, and his general bumbling in speech as a sign of being a moron and the Iraq war as being criminal (and again, show me serial sex abuse or take him off the list). So don't throw out a random number and then cower behind "it's subjective and you won't agree, so why bother?" If it's no bother, don't spew such nonsense in the first place and then claim "I'm being a devil's advocate". Man up, back up the rationale behind your claim, ID your sources and let them stand up to the light of criticism, and if you can convince us, great job enhancing the discussion and giving a fair and balanced viewpoint from the other side, and if you can't own your opinion and the errors, flaws, or biases that made it not defendable in the end. Otherwise, you are just being a troll and should be banned for doing nothing more than inflaming, which is a legit reason for censure according to board rules.

What about the article was incorrect?

Please identify the 4 presidents who are not racist, serial sex abusers, AND dangerous moron criminals in your mind, since asking you to list the 41 who are would take longer. In other words, back up your claim, or retract it as pure trolling.

It's called proof reading. Seriously, I try (TRY) to not go all grammar Nazi on posts, unless it's someone irritating (see Zontar in US Politics thread) or it's fantastically ironic, like someone posting "your an idiot"

Speaking of descent into dementia...…...

So a donor at a CPAC convention had coronavirus, and Ted Cruz was in contact with them, so he is under quarantine apparently. And today Matt Gaetz (who wore a gasmask to the House of Representatives to mock the vote for extra coronavirus funding) realized he had come into contact with that person too, so he "self-quarantined". By sitting alone in a room. Aboard Air Force One while it was in the air. No indication if the air circulatory system was independent of the rest of the plane (I'm guessing not). He then got into the Presidential limo with POTUS. Oh, and the stock market closed down 2,100 points and Italy is on lockdown. So how was your Monday? Any comments about a hoax? Anyone?

Season ticket holders get a nice discount ($20 off that price) if they pre-order. Just saying, if you needed another reason to sign up for season tickets.

That's your first mistake in going down the rabbit hole...trying to find "context" in Zontar's posts. Your second mistake is then engaging in a conversation by asking for sources or context. Just accept that it simply is a troll effort designed to deflect, frustrate and obfuscate. Remember, never argue with an idiot, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. A simple guide to the methodology: 1. Avoid the issue - Circuit judge has called out Barr for "misleading". Read between the lines: "You at worst lied about or at best severely underplayed what was in the report to cover for Trump, and redacted material that did not need to be redacted to avoid the truth of the document. So I am going to review the whole unredacted thing to determine what should be made public, not what you decided was in your "sanitized" 4 page summary version, because I don't trust that you had America's interests at heart in seeking the truth." Zontar ignores this and spins the "whastaboutism" of the Tower meeting. Surprised we didn't get a basic "But her e-mails!" rant, an oldey but a goodey for the Trump base. 2. Float an alternative conspiracy to distract from the issue at hand - in this case the "fake" Tower meeting. But if you want to follow the "logic" of the Trump Tower meeting, the claim appears to be that the meeting never happened and is another lie of the liberal MSM, with an "independent witness" proving the hoax to add credibility to the claim. Funny, no mention of who this independent source is, or where Zontar is citing that source from (and don't waste your breath asking for one or hold it expecting an answer, Zontar is predictably silent when asked to back up claims - illegal immigrant voting claim the most obvious example). 3. Point fingers about how the other side is corrupt. "Oooh, they are attacking Barr, but don't forget about CIA leaks which are worse, and bad info upon which warrants were obtained. So none of what you hear matters because it was a house built on sand." Another classic version of this was the anonymous whistleblower about the Ukraine call. "Wait, if they don't testify, then they must be tainted, and their evidence is then phony! WITCH HUNT!!!!!!" Except that isn't how the law works. Tips are nothing more than that - tips. They aren't evidence. They are claims to initiate an investigation. If further investigation turns up something, then you compile that information and present it before a judge with a request to obtain a warrant on the basis that something criminal is afoot. If the judge doesn't see anything substantive to corroborate the original tip, then no warrant and the source is considered not good enough, or not backed up enough. If they do see something, then they grant the warrant. The source never need be identified because they are not giving evidence, they are simply offering something upon which an investigation commences. It is the investigation that gets presented as evidence. The material the source provides gets tested, not the source itself. So it ultimately doesn't even matter if the source was questionable, the judge found there was enough underlying evidence to overcome any deficiencies of the source and grant the warrant anyway. But since the evidence is damning and the GOP can't argue it isn't, you attack the process. Like a tip saying there is a marijuana grow-op at a certain house. Police will take that tip and weigh it with further evidence they gather (maybe they do a drive-by and confirm that the location given is what was described, maybe they smell marijuana around the target house, maybe they use infrared cameras and see high heat signatures, maybe they check hydro and see ridiculously large readings, maybe they do a title search and find the owner has been busted for past grow-ops. So they get a warrant and find a massive grow-op. Now, the court could chuck the warrant if they find that the evidence was obtained badly (we trespassed and looked in a window and saw the plants) and the case could be tossed, but we all still know the guy did it. And the whole Trump saga isn't a criminal case, so the same level of Charter scrutiny doesn't apply anyway. So remember when they attack the process, they want you believe it didn't happen, but they can't say that it didn't happen because it absolutely did and all they have left is to scream "Look! Something shiny! Please focus on that and not the actual crimes which totally happened." If all that doesn't work to distract, then the next steps are: 4. This has been going on forever on both sides, so you are hypocritical for calling out the GOP and not the Dems before them 5. Yeah, so what, get over it (amazing that we now have a real life precedent for this exact phrase from Mick Mulvaney).

Yes. Very embarrassing for them. Quite red in the face, or as the Als would say, "rouge".

I think I see him in this picture.....no, wait.

I'll go you one better. Without the rouge, Saskatchewan does not put a returner in the end zone in the Grey Cup against Montreal, and then their 12 on the line to block the kick is legal, and we are deprived of the greatest bonehead penalty in sports history that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Anyone want to dump the rouge now?