Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

You just described 90% of the presidents in US history. 

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.

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

You know that's the way politics is played now, polarizing issues, no grey area, no need for critical thinking, we have done all that for you. 

Yup, just an ole timer, swimming against time and tide....

Edited March 11, 20205 yr by do or die

Just now, TrueBlue4ever said:

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.

Since all those qualifications are subjective only, and can't be quantified, I stand by 90% figure as my "best guess" 

2 minutes ago, do or die said:

Yup, just an ole timer, swimming against time and tide....

You should help Zontar and I get it through to the youngsters that they are just pawns in this game. 

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

CNN your most trusted news source, lol. 

What about the article was incorrect?

12 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If you won't discuss the topic at hand I'm going to have to ignore you, why haven't you ignored me btw? Am I like crack to you? 

Go ahead and ignore me. Unlike you, I actually prefer to debate topics and substantiate my claims with factual evidence. I posted a source to refute your claims about MAGA45 and you simply ignored it. See below:

And you are like crack, in that you're destructive and gross. So, sure... I'll agree with you on that.

Edited March 11, 20205 yr by blue_gold_84

28 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

If by ying you mean completely ignorant, wilfully disruptive, needlessly contrarian, totally disingenuous, and utterly incapable of substantiating any of your claims from a basis of objectivity or reason... then I agree.

The reality is this, though: you're not to here to foster anything of value and that's evidenced by the content you both continue to post in this sub-forum. Don't claim to be some moderate voice of reason here when all you've done flies right in the very face of that claim.

It takes some next level arrogance and delusion to think you're fooling anybody here. Taking a legitimate contrarian approach actually requires effort, BTW.

How many times have you heard someone argue in favour of the KKK because they wanted to foster discussion?  Not often.... the "devil's advocate" nonsense is certain people cloaking their real feelings behind an excuse.

We've actually seen some discussion in terms of people disagreeing about Biden/Bernie (people who agree about Trump).  Im with you.

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You should help Zontar and I get it through to the youngsters that they are just pawns in this game. 

Strange bedfellows indeed....

43 minutes ago, pigseye said:

To foster discussion of the topic from both sides of the spectrum since Zontar and I appear to be the only ying for the yang. 

Trolling isn't fostering discussion and you know it.  Contrarianism isn't another point of view.  Misinformation isn't valuable to any discussion. 

So I ask again, why are you an admitted troll?

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Since all those qualifications are subjective only, and can't be quantified, I stand by 90% figure as my "best guess" 

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.

48 minutes ago, pigseye said:

To foster discussion of the topic from both sides of the spectrum since Zontar and I appear to be the only ying for the yang. 

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

3 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

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.

Whats funny, is anything they want to point to when they play whataboutism only makes Trump look worse because as bad as anyone else was, he's worse.  Was Clinton a sexual harrasser?  Almost certainly.  But he isnt President and if he were running today, he'd be rightly judged on that stuff.  But there arent 20+ credible cases of serious sexual harassment, assault, rape like with Trump.   There arent victims coming out detailing Trump's behaviour towards minors.

Was W. a moron?  Almost certainly not.  Was he an intellectual?  probably not.  Again, Trump is literally an idiot.  He makes W. look like Einstein.  

You can go on and on lol

19 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

What about the article was incorrect?

I reject the article because CNN is nothing more than an anti-Trump mouth piece. Pot meet kettle. 

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

I reject the article because CNN is nothing more than an anti-Trump mouth piece. Pot meet kettle. 

So you didn't read it?

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

I reject the article because CNN is nothing more than an anti-Trump mouth piece. Pot meet kettle. 

Translation: "I reject facts I disagree with."

20 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Go ahead and ignore me. Unlike you, I actually prefer to debate topics and substantiate my claims with factual evidence. I posted a source to refute your claims about MAGA45 and you simply ignored it. See below:

And you are like crack, in that you're destructive and gross. So, sure... I'll agree with you on that.

I will gladly debate any topic with you, when you grow up and prove that you can actually debate the topic. 

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I reject the article because CNN is nothing more than an anti-Trump mouth piece. Pot meet kettle. 

That's pathetic.  Back to ignore.

Reading some of this stuff.....I "embrace gin glasses that are filled"...

14 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Trolling isn't fostering discussion and you know it.  Contrarianism isn't another point of view.  Misinformation isn't valuable to any discussion. 

So I ask again, why are you an admitted troll?

You are entitled to your opinion, if people disagree with it, suck it up. 

Its actually really interesting cause I just had a "debate" with a long time friend who loves Trump.  There is no convincing.  Trump isnt racist.  Its all media nonsense.  Its rich media people who hate him.  He fixed the economy.  He's cheered everywhere he goes.  "I visit the US so I know what really goes on."

 

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Translation: "I reject facts I disagree with."

And that's why they like Trump. He doesn't care about facts or science, he goes with what he feels, which, of course, flies in the face of facts and science. 

They like being dumb. It's "who" they are. 

13 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

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.

Here's 11 racists for you, and I guess Trump makes 12? 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/would-a-president-trump-m_b_10135836

I'm not going to bother with the rest of subjective qualifications. 

18 hours ago, Zontar said:

Just freed up billions to address the virus. More than what was asked. Which any president would have done. To insinuate there is somehow less money to combat Wuhan is flat out dishonest.

I guess if you think that all problems reduce to just writing a cheque in the right amount, you could believe that.

The trouble is, when you're fighting a pandemic, you're not just battling a lack of resources, you're battling a lack of time and opportunities.  There are key moments when you can act; afterwards, cleanup and recovery become a lot more expensive.

Trump squandered precious time with his feckless management of the White House's emergency apparatus and the starvation of the CDC.

Think of it like some idiot who replaces a fuse with a penny because a penny is cheaper than a fuse and the lights still come on with the penny in there. Then his family dies in a house fire, but it's okay because insurance will write a cheque to cover his losses.  That idiot is in charge and you're carrying his water.  Who hurt you, man?

Edited March 11, 20205 yr by johnzo

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its actually really interesting cause I just had a "debate" with a long time friend who loves Trump.  There is no convincing.  Trump isnt racist.  Its all media nonsense.  Its rich media people who hate him.  He fixed the economy.  He's cheered everywhere he goes.  "I visit the US so I know what really goes on."

 

You do realize that he is just a product of what he is being fed, like you are, and I am and everyone else is. 

Well, Trump said Monday that he would reveal a “major” and “dramatic” stimulus proposal Tuesday, but today his economic adviser Larry Kudlow was trotted out .....and Kudlow proceeded to dodge all questions on when Trump’s proposal would come out, how big it would be, and when he could sign a potential stimulus plan.

In the meantime....the DOW dropped another 1500 points