SCOTUS Upholds Trump Travel Ban
The Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration Travel Ban as Constitutional.
This is a huge win for the administration. It was lawful all along as those of us who are sane understood.
Comments
-
@reformed said:
The Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration Travel Ban as Constitutional.This is a huge win for the administration. It was lawful all along as those of us who are sane understood.
Seems like the world is just a little bit safer when in its rulings the Supreme Court sides with the "sane." But sanity's victories are often insanity's burdens, so let's pray for the insane among us, people - like the four dissenting Court justices - alarmed and troubled by the Court's ruling on the travel ban.
In these morally and politically turbulent times, insanity can be both blessing and curse. In the aftermath of the Court's ruling today, as reformed's post helpfully reminds us, for many of our nation's insane it is more the latter than the former.
Pray hard.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration Travel Ban as Constitutional.This is a huge win for the administration. It was lawful all along as those of us who are sane understood.
Seems like the world is just a little bit safer when in its rulings the Supreme Court sides with the "sane." But sanity's victories are often insanity's burdens, so let's pray for the insane among us, people - like the four dissenting Court justices - alarmed and troubled by the Court's ruling on the travel ban.
In these morally and politically turbulent times, insanity can be both blessing and curse. In the aftermath of the Court's ruling today, as reformed's post helpfully reminds us, for many of our nation's insane it is more the latter than the former.
Pray hard.
I do pray for sanity for liberals, DAILY. They would run our country into the ground with their polices like Obama did for 8 years.
-
@reformed said:
I do pray for sanity for liberals, DAILY. They would run our country into the ground with their polices like Obama did for 8 years.Thank you for your prayers for us liberals, reformed, but please don't stop with us! Insanity's dastardly tentacles reach into all areas of public life (save for Supreme Court cases with which you concur, I guess).
Please don't allow your fixation on liberals to deny ALL of the nation's insane a spot on your prayer list.
-
@reformed said:
The Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration Travel Ban as Constitutional.This is a huge win for the administration. It was lawful all along as those of us who are sane understood.
This is Mr. Trump's "watered down" version (and unhappy) of the original ban. He had to adjust it. I am not surprised. This is not news. See my new post for the real news of today. Notwithstanding, there are cultic locked-step Republicans on the bench, like the ones in Congress and in the administration. Today's decision confirmed my foresight. I stated my view of America when it comes to immigration. See my Post C_M_ # 1,102, Post- America's War on Children--Legislative Cruelty
@CM said:
"...It seems that the people whose skin is not Anglo "white" and those who wear Hijab, niqab, or burkas are not welcome in America. If this trend proves to be a reality, America will be worthless, meaningless and a shadow of herself."In an earlier post, I said,
"America will be inclined to become a by-word and "a hiss." She will become a monolithic aristocracy of irrelevancy. America is headed down a slippery slope to the reincarnation of Nazism with a new leader and symbol. America has lost her moral sense, all because of Fear, hatred, greed, and loyalty to a party. They fear the "browning of America", an inevitable reality if she worth any existence in the future. This code for the rotting of America is MAGA, led by the "Bully-in-Chief", Donald J. Trump (an admirer of Dictators/strong men). This is the man "Christians" say is a "successful President" and they are "proud" of him! God, help America! CM
Stay tuned for the real news of today... CM
-
THE UNREPORTED REAL NEWS AND IT'S ALL MR. TRUMP'S FAULT. This is the real news from Tuesday.
I said it before. Some in CD thought I crying like Chicken Little-- " The sky is falling..." No, It's the US Economy! The stupified Republicans must learn that someone has to pay for trade wars and the largest unfair tax cut in US history.
The federal debt is headed for the highest levels since World War II, CBO says
By Jeff Stein June 26 at 2:42 PM
Government debt is on track to hit historically high levels and at its current growth rate will be nearly equal in size to the U.S. economy by 2028, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.
By the end of this year, the ratio of federal debt to the United States' gross domestic product will reach 78 percent, according to the CBO, the highest ratio since 1950.
The debt is projected to grow to 96 percent of GDP by 2028 before eventually surpassing the historical high of 106 percent it reached in 1946.
Currently, the federal government’s debt burden is about $15 trillion, according to Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank.
[The U.N. says 18.5 million Americans are in ‘extreme poverty.’ Trump’s team says just 250,000 are.]
The 1946 high was prompted by a spending push to fund World War II, and other spikes in the debt have been driven by economic downturns. But the current bump comes amid a relatively healthy economy, suggesting a structural gap between how much the country collects in taxes and how much it spends.
The “debt-to-GDP” measurement compares the overall amount of debt held by the federal government with the size of the entire U.S. economy. Economists use the comparison, which takes into account inflation and overall economic growth, to illustrate the scope of the deficit.
The long-term deficit analysis that CBO released Tuesday goes beyond its typical assessments of budget outlooks within the next decade. The analysis makes clear the deficit projections are impossible to gauge with complete precision, in part because it cannot account for unforeseen changes to federal policy, economic trends or global events.
[U.S. military budget inches closer to $1 trillion mark, as concerns over federal deficit grow]
The CBO projects the Republican tax law passed last fall will add $1.84 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Republican leaders have argued the cuts will jump-start the economy, creating enough economic growth to offset much of the additions to the debt. But CBO and other nonpartisan analysts have repeatedly rejected that claim...
But GOP leaders repeatedly said that the tax cuts will not be allowed to expire, promising that a future Congress will act to extend them. If the individual tax cuts are extended, the law's projected additions to the deficit would probably increase dramatically.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Tuesday that U.S. debt would reach about 200 percent of GDP in 2048 if the tax cuts and the Congressional spending packaged agreed to last March are made permanent.
In 2017, the CBO projected that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would reach 150 percent by 2047. But this year, despite the tax law's passage, the CBO now says federal debt-to-GDP will reach 148 percent by 2047. The slight decline is partially due to the CBO revising down its estimates for the cost of Social Security and health-care programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. The CBO also lowered its estimates for how much it expects the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act to cost.
The permanent feature of the GOP tax law cuts corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent. But that change does not appear to fundamentally alter America's long-run deficit, as corporate revenue only accounts for less than 1.5 percent of GDP. Individual income taxes account for about eight percent of GDP.
The CBO still projects debt rising very quickly, with particularly fast growth in the amount America spends on its debt interest payments. Interest costs are expected to approximately double as a share of the economy over the next decade and even overtake the cost of funding Social Security — the biggest expenditure in the federal budget — by 2048.
These are not my numbers or report. I'm just the messenger. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. America, get your head out of the sand! CM
PS. Do you think I hate America? Am I not an American? Do I live in America? Do I wish America ill? Do you think I love America? These are some questions asked of me over time. Well,
-
Perhaps it only appears so.
-
@C_M_ said:
THE UNREPORTED REAL NEWS AND IT'S ALL MR. TRUMP'S FAULT. This is the real news from Tuesday.
I said it before. Some in CD thought I crying like Chicken Little-- " The sky is falling..." No, It's the US Economy! The stupified Republicans must learn that someone has to pay for trade wars and the largest unfair tax cut in US history.
Thank you for calling attention to the CBO's report on the projected course of U.S. national debt, CM. It is a painful but necessary reminder of the economic challenges that await us.
We who opposed the Trump tax cuts last year made two basic points: 1) most of their cuts benefited corporations and the wealthy, and did so permanently for corporations, but only for ten years for individuals; therefore, the cuts' benefits for the economic middle class would be small and short-lived; 2) the cuts would add to annual federal deficits, and therefore to the growing national debt.
Based on the government reports released since the cuts went into effect, and surveys of taxpayers as to the impact of the cuts on their household incomes, it's clear to me that we were correct on both accounts: Trump's cuts helped the wealthy and raised the debt. He sought the former outcome and didn't care about the latter.
While Congress considered the tax cuts last year, the vast majority of reputable economic projections argued against their passage. Now that the cuts are in effect, the vast majority of reputable economic projections argue in favor of their cancellation. Given that the cuts will obviously not be discontinued by the mid-term elections this fall, expect them to be an issue hammered by Democrats and evaded by Republicans.
Oh, and in case the Trumpkins in our midst want to argue that the strong American economy is proof the tax cuts worked, remember that the economy had been expanding for seven years when the president took office. Econ 101 says tax cuts can over-stimulate a growing economy, which can lead to rising interest rates (as the Fed what it did within the last two weeks) and price inflation (check your local gas pump and grocery store).
There was no economic justification for the cuts when they were passed, and there remains no justification for them today.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
THE UNREPORTED REAL NEWS AND IT'S ALL MR. TRUMP'S FAULT. This is the real news from Tuesday.
I said it before. Some in CD thought I crying like Chicken Little-- " The sky is falling..." No, It's the US Economy! The stupified Republicans must learn that someone has to pay for trade wars and the largest unfair tax cut in US history.
Thank you for calling attention to the CBO's report on the projected course of U.S. national debt, CM. It is a painful but necessary reminder of the economic challenges that await us.
We who opposed the Trump tax cuts last year made two basic points: 1) most of their cuts benefited corporations and the wealthy, and did so permanently for corporations, but only for ten years for individuals; therefore, the cuts' benefits for the economic middle class would be small and short-lived; 2) the cuts would add to annual federal deficits, and therefore to the growing national debt.
Based on the government reports released since the cuts went into effect, and surveys of taxpayers as to the impact of the cuts on their household incomes, it's clear to me that we were correct on both accounts: Trump's cuts helped the wealthy and raised the debt. He sought the former outcome and didn't care about the latter.
While Congress considered the tax cuts last year, the vast majority of reputable economic projections argued against their passage. Now that the cuts are in effect, the vast majority of reputable economic projections argue in favor of their cancellation. Given that the cuts will obviously not be discontinued by the mid-term elections this fall, expect them to be an issue hammered by Democrats and evaded by Republicans.
Oh, and in case the Trumpkins in our midst want to argue that the strong American economy is proof the tax cuts worked, remember that the economy had been expanding for seven years when the president took office. Econ 101 says tax cuts can over-stimulate a growing economy, which can lead to rising interest rates (as the Fed what it did within the last two weeks) and price inflation (check your local gas pump and grocery store).
There was no economic justification for the cuts when they were passed, and there remains no justification for them today.
I don't put much stock in the CBO, they are rarely accurate.
-
@reformed said:
I don't put much stock in the CBO, they are rarely accurate.The fact that CBO analyses are rarely embraced by those who dispute their conclusions is political, but not economic, reality in the United States. Nothing that has happened in the last year suggests the CBO erred in any consequential way in its analysis of the Trump cuts.
Or perhaps I'm wrong! Perhaps the cuts will not increase the national debt, and will not help corporations and the wealthy more than the middle class. Perhaps the personal income tax cuts aren't scheduled to expire in 2026. I will welcome the links you provide to reputable data/studies to those effects.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I don't put much stock in the CBO, they are rarely accurate.The fact that CBO analyses are rarely embraced by those who dispute their conclusions is political, but not economic, reality in the United States. Nothing that has happened in the last year suggests the CBO erred in any consequential way in its analysis of the Trump cuts.
Or perhaps I'm wrong! Perhaps the cuts will not increase the national debt, and will not help corporations and the wealthy more than the middle class. Perhaps the personal income tax cuts aren't scheduled to expire in 2026. I will welcome the links you provide to reputable data/studies to those effects.
Well we know when corporations are helped, so is the working class, and that has been abundant in the news since last year's tax cuts. If you want to put your head in the sand, go ahead.
Regarding the CBO, let's look at one biggie they messed up. OBAMACARE. They got that so wrong it blasts their credibility out of the water.
-
@reformed said:
Well we know when corporations are helped, so is the working class, and that has been abundant in the news since last year's tax cuts. If you want to put your head in the sand, go ahead.Where you and I put our respective heads is not relevant to the facts about the economic impact of tax cuts.
Speaking of such facts, please provide links to data that validate the link you make between corporate tax cuts and working class workers. As THIS ARTICLE reports, corporate cuts historically have not produced great macroeconomic benefits.
I bet you remember the exchange from last November between then-White House economic adviser Gary Cohn and a bunch of corporate CEOs reported by THIS ARTICLE. When asked whether they intended to create jobs with their tax cut money, only a handful of 50 or 100 CEOs in the room raised their hands. The same thing happened when they asked the question to an afternoon session. Most corporate tax cuts underwrite stock buy-backs and other non-job creating outcomes.
Regarding the CBO, let's look at one biggie they messed up. OBAMACARE. They got that so wrong it blasts their credibility out of the water.
I encourage you to research the issue of the CBO's accuracy when it came to the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it was a Trumpster talking point that the CBO was way off, but as Factcheck.org pointed out, that talking point accused the CBO of crimes it did not commit.
A detailed analysis of the accuracy of the CBO's predictions from the Commonwealth Fund concluded...
"The Affordable Care Act was a critical step in expanding health insurance coverage, but it is unlikely to be the last national health policy reform considered by Congress. It is therefore reassuring that despite many factors that could not have been foreseen in 2010—such as the ACA’s troubled rollout and the lack of state support—the CBO model proved to be reasonably accurate compared with actual experience and the estimates of other modelers. This should allay concerns of some critics that its forecasts were biased in favor of the Administration.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Well we know when corporations are helped, so is the working class, and that has been abundant in the news since last year's tax cuts. If you want to put your head in the sand, go ahead.Where you and I put our respective heads is not relevant to the facts about the economic impact of tax cuts.
Speaking of such facts, please provide links to data that validate the link you make between corporate tax cuts and working class workers. As THIS ARTICLE reports, corporate cuts historically have not produced great macroeconomic benefits.
I bet you remember the exchange from last November between then-White House economic adviser Gary Cohn and a bunch of corporate CEOs reported by THIS ARTICLE. When asked whether they intended to create jobs with their tax cut money, only a handful of 50 or 100 CEOs in the room raised their hands. The same thing happened when they asked the question to an afternoon session. Most corporate tax cuts underwrite stock buy-backs and other non-job creating outcomes.
Regarding the CBO, let's look at one biggie they messed up. OBAMACARE. They got that so wrong it blasts their credibility out of the water.
I encourage you to research the issue of the CBO's accuracy when it came to the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it was a Trumpster talking point that the CBO was way off, but as Factcheck.org pointed out, that talking point accused the CBO of crimes it did not commit.
A detailed analysis of the accuracy of the CBO's predictions from the Commonwealth Fund concluded...
"The Affordable Care Act was a critical step in expanding health insurance coverage, but it is unlikely to be the last national health policy reform considered by Congress. It is therefore reassuring that despite many factors that could not have been foreseen in 2010—such as the ACA’s troubled rollout and the lack of state support—the CBO model proved to be reasonably accurate compared with actual experience and the estimates of other modelers. This should allay concerns of some critics that its forecasts were biased in favor of the Administration.
You can post the links you want, I deal in reality. I see what is happening across the country, I know how people I know have gotten raises and small businesses are hiring again. I've seen people who have been unemployed get jobs now. So go ahead, post your biased links. That's fine. I'll go with what is actually happening.
-
@reformed said:
You can post the links you want, I deal in reality. I see what is happening across the country, I know how people I know have gotten raises and small businesses are hiring again. I've seen people who have been unemployed get jobs now. So go ahead, post your biased links. That's fine. I'll go with what is actually happening.Your post offers about as refined an example of "Trumpster Truth" as we'll find in these forums, reformed. Trumpster truth exhibits no regard for the objective truth of its claims; it cares only that for Trumpsters the claims are true.
President Trump - obviously the Alpha Trumpster - has spoken falsehoods repeatedly throughout his presidency. Has he EVER acknowledged the inaccuracy of ANY of those falsehoods? Not to my knowledge. But he can't acknowledge inaccuracy, because to do so would violate the principles of Trumpster truth.
[Compare Trump's handling of HIS misrepresentations of truth with the mainstream media's handling of theirs. I believe it's true that on EVERY ONE the occasions when Trump could legitimately point to an error made by a media outlet, the media outlet responsible for the misrepresentation of truth corrected and apologized for its error, and did so usually within 12-24 hours.
Mainstream new media outlets correct their mistakes with the truth because they know there IS objective truth; they don't traffic in transactional truth. Yes, they misstate the truth! But they correct their errors... almost always. And yes, Donald Trump misstates the truth! But he doesn't correct his errors... ever.]
Trumpster Truth is transactional truth - it has a mission. That mission is NOT to report objective reality, but to serve a particular purpose. So what's "true" doesn't depend on what's objectively true, but on what's needed in the given circumstances.
Birtherism was Trumpster Truth's most powerful progeny. The Trumpster Truth claim that Barack Obama was not born in the United States was, from the moment Mr Trump first presented it, objectively false. There never was, never could have been, any truth to the claim, BUT THAT NEVER MATTERED because as Trumpster Truth, its purpose had nothing to do with objective reality.
A YouGov.com poll in December 2017 showed that 51% of Republicans in the country STILL believed it was either "definitely" or "probably" true that Obama was born in Kenya. That's Trumpster Truth: Don't tell me what actually IS true. I will tell you what I think/want/need to be true.
And such is the case in your post, reformed, wherein you essentially say "Don't give me facts, data, or other items of objective truth. I know what's true for me, and that's what matters."
On what basis do I reach that assessment of your intentions? Because you don't dispute ANY of the assertions of truth I made. Oh sure, you offer a pithy, "Fake News!"-like objection to my "biased links." But you don't prove the bias of those links. You offer no hard data that connects recent economic outcomes to the Trump tax cuts. You cite no experts who refute the CBO's forecast of the cuts' impact on the national debt. And you don't do any of those things for at least two reasons: 1) You can't. My assertions of fact are true and based in objective truth; 2) You don't need to, because for Trumpsters such as yourself, truth is not objective, it's transactional and situational. In this situation, you need the tax cuts to be responsible for robust economic outcomes.... and so for you, regardless of the objective truth about them, they are.
And Trumpster Truth became unsupported claims and posted among us.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You can post the links you want, I deal in reality. I see what is happening across the country, I know how people I know have gotten raises and small businesses are hiring again. I've seen people who have been unemployed get jobs now. So go ahead, post your biased links. That's fine. I'll go with what is actually happening.Your post offers about as refined an example of "Trumpster Truth" as we'll find in these forums, reformed. Trumpster truth exhibits no regard for the objective truth of its claims; it cares only that for Trumpsters the claims are true.
President Trump - obviously the Alpha Trumpster - has spoken falsehoods repeatedly throughout his presidency. Has he EVER acknowledged the inaccuracy of ANY of those falsehoods? Not to my knowledge. But he can't acknowledge inaccuracy, because to do so would violate the principles of Trumpster truth.
[Compare Trump's handling of HIS misrepresentations of truth with the mainstream media's handling of theirs. I believe it's true that on EVERY ONE the occasions when Trump could legitimately point to an error made by a media outlet, the media outlet responsible for the misrepresentation of truth corrected and apologized for its error, and did so usually within 12-24 hours.
Mainstream new media outlets correct their mistakes with the truth because they know there IS objective truth; they don't traffic in transactional truth. Yes, they misstate the truth! But they correct their errors... almost always. And yes, Donald Trump misstates the truth! But he doesn't correct his errors... ever.]
Trumpster Truth is transactional truth - it has a mission. That mission is NOT to report objective reality, but to serve a particular purpose. So what's "true" doesn't depend on what's objectively true, but on what's needed in the given circumstances.
Birtherism was Trumpster Truth's most powerful progeny. The Trumpster Truth claim that Barack Obama was not born in the United States was, from the moment Mr Trump first presented it, objectively false. There never was, never could have been, any truth to the claim, BUT THAT NEVER MATTERED because as Trumpster Truth, its purpose had nothing to do with objective reality.
A YouGov.com poll in December 2017 showed that 51% of Republicans in the country STILL believed it was either "definitely" or "probably" true that Obama was born in Kenya. That's Trumpster Truth: Don't tell me what actually IS true. I will tell you what I think/want/need to be true.
And such is the case in your post, reformed, wherein you essentially say "Don't give me facts, data, or other items of objective truth. I know what's true for me, and that's what matters."
On what basis do I reach that assessment of your intentions? Because you don't dispute ANY of the assertions of truth I made. Oh sure, you offer a pithy, "Fake News!"-like objection to my "biased links." But you don't prove the bias of those links. You offer no hard data that connects recent economic outcomes to the Trump tax cuts. You cite no experts who refute the CBO's forecast of the cuts' impact on the national debt. And you don't do any of those things for at least two reasons: 1) You can't. My assertions of fact are true and based in objective truth; 2) You don't need to, because for Trumpsters such as yourself, truth is not objective, it's transactional and situational. In this situation, you need the tax cuts to be responsible for robust economic outcomes.... and so for you, regardless of the objective truth about them, they are.
And Trumpster Truth became unsupported claims and posted among us.
No Bill, this is something different. I know what we are actually seeing in day to day America. We are seeing growth, job creation, higher wages, bonuses, lower taxes, economy expanding.
That's what we are seeing on the ground.
You and your "facts" can take a hike.
-
@reformed said:
No Bill, this is something different. I know what we are actually seeing in day to day America. We are seeing growth, job creation, higher wages, bonuses, lower taxes, economy expanding.That's what we are seeing on the ground.
You and your "facts" can take a hike.
And yet again you demonstrate Trumpster Truth, reformed. What's true for you - a set of anecdotal observations and economic indicators devoid of any causative connection to the Trump tax cuts, and absent any comment on, let alone concern for, the cuts' impact on the national debt - is all that matters. Any assertions of fact that dispute your interpretation of reality - regardless of how rooted in objective truth be those assertions of fact - is rejected, labeled "biased" or "Fake News!" and told to "take a hike."
"The Donald" would be proud of your defense of the kingdom.
-
@reformed said:
No Bill, this is something different...We are seeing growth, job creation, higher wages, bonuses, lower taxes, economy expanding.Try telling this to the dairy/wheat farmers, Harley-Davidson workers, and their investors, the stock market, etc. They will tell:
You and your "facts" ... take a hike.
Be careful to whom or where you spur these economic incestual Republican talking points. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
No Bill, this is something different...We are seeing growth, job creation, higher wages, bonuses, lower taxes, economy expanding.Try telling this to the dairy/wheat farmers, Harley-Davidson workers, and their investors, the stock market, etc. They will tell:
You and your "facts" ... take a hike.
Be careful to whom or where you spur these economic incestual Republican talking points. CM
You mean the stock market that has been booming? Harley Davidson is due to tarrifs, not the tax cuts. It is also a knee jerk reaction.
I also don't know what you are talking about with the farmers.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No Bill, this is something different. I know what we are actually seeing in day to day America. We are seeing growth, job creation, higher wages, bonuses, lower taxes, economy expanding.That's what we are seeing on the ground.
You and your "facts" can take a hike.
And yet again you demonstrate Trumpster Truth, reformed. What's true for you - a set of anecdotal observations and economic indicators devoid of any causative connection to the Trump tax cuts, and absent any comment on, let alone concern for, the cuts' impact on the national debt - is all that matters. Any assertions of fact that dispute your interpretation of reality - regardless of how rooted in objective truth be those assertions of fact - is rejected, labeled "biased" or "Fake News!" and told to "take a hike."
"The Donald" would be proud of your defense of the kingdom.
Look, I'm not a huge Trumpster despite what you think. He was not my choice. But he is doing a great job despite your liberal vitriol.
-
@reformed said:
You mean the stock market that has been booming? Harley Davidson is due to tarrifs, not the tax cuts. It is also a knee jerk reaction.
You mean the stock market that has fallen more than ten percent in the last six months? The stock market that since Trump took office has maintained the same basic trajectory of growth started in the second year of Obama's first term?
Look, I'm not a huge Trumpster despite what you think. He was not my choice. But he is doing a great job despite your liberal vitriol.
What makes you a Trumpster, in my view, is your disregard for objective, fact-based truth, not the identity of your "choice" for president. But let's test it out via three yes/no questions:
1. In the five-plus years leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign, did Donald Trump repeatedly lie about Barack Obama's birthplace?
2. Given that in official court filings, the Justice Department has acknowledged that it has no evidence to support the president's tweeted claims that Obama "tapped (his) phones" in Trump Tower, or otherwise "wiretapped" Trump Tower in the way(s) he claimed in those tweets, is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF of the truth of the president's tweets?
3. On multiple occasions the president has claimed that the reason he lost the 2016 popular vote was that "millions of illegals" voted for Hillary Clinton. Is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF that "millions of illegals" so voted? -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You mean the stock market that has been booming? Harley Davidson is due to tarrifs, not the tax cuts. It is also a knee jerk reaction.
You mean the stock market that has fallen more than ten percent in the last six months? The stock market that since Trump took office has maintained the same basic trajectory of growth started in the second year of Obama's first term?
Look, I'm not a huge Trumpster despite what you think. He was not my choice. But he is doing a great job despite your liberal vitriol.
What makes you a Trumpster, in my view, is your disregard for objective, fact-based truth, not the identity of your "choice" for president. But let's test it out via three yes/no questions:
1. In the five-plus years leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign, did Donald Trump repeatedly lie about Barack Obama's birthplace?Lie, no. Question despite evidence to the contrary? Yes.
- Given that in official court filings, the Justice Department has acknowledged that it has no evidence to support the president's tweeted claims that Obama "tapped (his) phones" in Trump Tower, or otherwise "wiretapped" Trump Tower in the way(s) he claimed in those tweets, is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF of the truth of the president's tweets?
If you argue semantics, which you like to do, that is correct. But if you ask the question of whether or not they were surveilling Trump tower, then yes, there is evidence of that.
- On multiple occasions the president has claimed that the reason he lost the 2016 popular vote was that "millions of illegals" voted for Hillary Clinton. Is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF that "millions of illegals" so voted?
I don't know if there is factual proof of that or not. I do know illegals vote. How many? I can't say. Though I doubt it swung the popular vote.
The reason he lost the popular vote was because of the big lopsided liberal markets of California and New York. Thank God we have an electoral college and not a popular vote so those few markets don't speak for the whole country.
-
@reformed said:
- In the five-plus years leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign, did Donald Trump repeatedly lie about Barack Obama's birthplace?
Lie, no. Question despite evidence to the contrary? Yes.
/
- Given that in official court filings, the Justice Department has acknowledged that it has no evidence to support the president's tweeted claims that Obama "tapped (his) phones" in Trump Tower, or otherwise "wiretapped" Trump Tower in the way(s) he claimed in those tweets, is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF of the truth of the president's tweets?
If you argue semantics, which you like to do, that is correct. But if you ask the question of whether or not they were surveilling Trump tower, then yes, there is evidence of that.
/
- On multiple occasions the president has claimed that the reason he lost the 2016 popular vote was that "millions of illegals" voted for Hillary Clinton. Is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF that "millions of illegals" so voted?
I don't know if there is factual proof of that or not. I do know illegals vote. How many? I can't say. Though I doubt it swung the popular vote.
The reason he lost the popular vote was because of the big lopsided liberal markets of California and New York. Thank God we have an electoral college and not a popular vote so those few markets don't speak for the whole country.
Your responses reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth, reformed. For you and other Trumpsters, truth is not objective; it's transactional. It's what you want or need it to be in the given circumstance. In the setting of our exchange, you need the truth to be that there be SOME explanation/defense/rationalization/minimization of the president's past statements. Under no circumstances can you agree to call the president's statements "lies," even if, objectively, that's what they were.
- So you say Mr Trump only "questioned" Obama's birthplace "without evidence," though objectively, we both know Trump did FAR more than that
- You accuse me of reliance on "semantics" to minimize the obvious falsehood of the president's wiretapping allegations
- And you say Trump had the crime right - illegals DID vote! - but he might have overstated their turnout.
Minimize, rationalize, and redefine to achieve a desired objective. Your post here is Trumpster Truth in action.
-
I am getting such a kick out of this "facts" thing. A link to the internet is a fact for some people--increasingly we may note this by those more likely to reject the Bible as fact. Want a link for that?
-
@GaoLu said:
I am getting such a kick out of this "facts" thing. A link to the internet is a fact for some people--increasingly we may note this by those more likely to reject the Bible as fact. Want a link for that?Interesting that you bring up the Bible, Gao Lu, for though many people don't quickly associate President Trump as a devotee of Scripture, in April 2016, then-candidate Trump had a fascinating response when, by a Rochester, New York, radio station, he was asked for a favorite Bible verse or Bible story that had informed his life or character:
"Well, I think many. I mean, when we get into the Bible, I think many, so many. And some people, look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that. That's not a particularly nice thing. But you know, if you look at what's happening to our country, I mean, when you see what's going on with our country, how people are taking advantage of us, and how they scoff at us and laugh at us. And they laugh at our face, and they're taking our jobs, they're taking our money, they're taking the health of our country. And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you."
That wasn't the president's only word on the subject, of course. In September 2015 he told CBN...
""Proverbs, the chapter 'never bend to envy.' I've had that thing all of my life where people are bending to envy."
And in August 2015 - a month before citing Proverbs and eight months before citing "eye for an eye," he declined Bloomberg's request for his favorite verses, saying the Bible was "very personal."
So there you go.
Some of us might choose the 23rd Psalm and its praise of God, who accompanies us even through valleys of death. Others of us are drawn to the promise of eternal life inspirationally delivered by John 3.16. My life-shaping passage is Romans 8.38-39, as it reminds me of God's unfailing love. For the leader of the free world, it's "an eye for an eye," or "don't bend to envy," or "that's personal."
Well, at least he has one... or two... or none that are impersonal enough for him to name.
p.s. I encourage you to fact check this post. But please don't use "Trumpster Truth" as your check's baseline. As the quotations above just showed, Trumpster Truth changes FAR too often to be a reliable resource.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
- In the five-plus years leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign, did Donald Trump repeatedly lie about Barack Obama's birthplace?
Lie, no. Question despite evidence to the contrary? Yes.
/
- Given that in official court filings, the Justice Department has acknowledged that it has no evidence to support the president's tweeted claims that Obama "tapped (his) phones" in Trump Tower, or otherwise "wiretapped" Trump Tower in the way(s) he claimed in those tweets, is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF of the truth of the president's tweets?
If you argue semantics, which you like to do, that is correct. But if you ask the question of whether or not they were surveilling Trump tower, then yes, there is evidence of that.
/
- On multiple occasions the president has claimed that the reason he lost the 2016 popular vote was that "millions of illegals" voted for Hillary Clinton. Is there OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL PROOF that "millions of illegals" so voted?
I don't know if there is factual proof of that or not. I do know illegals vote. How many? I can't say. Though I doubt it swung the popular vote.
The reason he lost the popular vote was because of the big lopsided liberal markets of California and New York. Thank God we have an electoral college and not a popular vote so those few markets don't speak for the whole country.
Your responses reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth, reformed. For you and other Trumpsters, truth is not objective; it's transactional. It's what you want or need it to be in the given circumstance. In the setting of our exchange, you need the truth to be that there be SOME explanation/defense/rationalization/minimization of the president's past statements. Under no circumstances can you agree to call the president's statements "lies," even if, objectively, that's what they were.
- So you say Mr Trump only "questioned" Obama's birthplace "without evidence," though objectively, we both know Trump did FAR more than that
- You accuse me of reliance on "semantics" to minimize the obvious falsehood of the president's wiretapping allegations
- And you say Trump had the crime right - illegals DID vote! - but he might have overstated their turnout.
Minimize, rationalize, and redefine to achieve a desired objective. Your post here is Trumpster Truth in action.
Name where any one of my statements was false and then you can say I have a Trumpster understanding of objective Truth. Here is what I have seen and observed from you.
You are a liberal who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you. You think you are better than everyone else and more educated than everyone else. You are so blinded by your arrogance you can't see two feet in front of you.
@GaoLu said:
I am getting such a kick out of this "facts" thing. A link to the internet is a fact for some people--increasingly we may note this by those more likely to reject the Bible as fact. Want a link for that?So true.
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
I am getting such a kick out of this "facts" thing. A link to the internet is a fact for some people--increasingly we may note this by those more likely to reject the Bible as fact. Want a link for that?Interesting that you bring up the Bible, Gao Lu, for though many people don't quickly associate President Trump as a devotee of Scripture, in April 2016, then-candidate Trump had a fascinating response when, by a Rochester, New York, radio station, he was asked for a favorite Bible verse or Bible story that had informed his life or character:
"Well, I think many. I mean, when we get into the Bible, I think many, so many. And some people, look, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that. That's not a particularly nice thing. But you know, if you look at what's happening to our country, I mean, when you see what's going on with our country, how people are taking advantage of us, and how they scoff at us and laugh at us. And they laugh at our face, and they're taking our jobs, they're taking our money, they're taking the health of our country. And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you."
That wasn't the president's only word on the subject, of course. In September 2015 he told CBN...
""Proverbs, the chapter 'never bend to envy.' I've had that thing all of my life where people are bending to envy."
And in August 2015 - a month before citing Proverbs and eight months before citing "eye for an eye," he declined Bloomberg's request for his favorite verses, saying the Bible was "very personal."
So there you go.
Some of us might choose the 23rd Psalm and its praise of God, who accompanies us even through valleys of death. Others of us are drawn to the promise of eternal life inspirationally delivered by John 3.16. My life-shaping passage is Romans 8.38-39, as it reminds me of God's unfailing love. For the leader of the free world, it's "an eye for an eye," or "don't bend to envy," or "that's personal."
Well, at least he has one... or two... or none that are impersonal enough for him to name.
p.s. I encourage you to fact check this post. But please don't use "Trumpster Truth" as your check's baseline. As the quotations above just showed, Trumpster Truth changes FAR too often to be a reliable resource.
Here is a fact check, news is twisted. The Wall Street Journal just this week posted in two different demographics two very different headlines about the exact same story depending on if it was a liberal demographic or conservative.
-
Minimize, rationalize, and redefine to achieve a desired objective. Your post here is Trumpster Truth in action.
@reformed said:
Name where any one of my statements was false and then you can say I have a Trumpster understanding of objective Truth. Here is what I have seen and observed from you.The point of my previous post was that "your responses [to the summaries I provided of Donald Trump's beliefs regarding Obama's birthplace, Obama's wiretapping of Trump's phones, and the incidence of illegal aliens' voting in the 2016 election] reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth." For the reasons I think that post made clear, I stand by my claim.
You are a liberal who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you. You think you are better than everyone else and more educated than everyone else. You are so blinded by your arrogance you can't see two feet in front of you.
- Am I a liberal? Yes, though I prefer the term "progressive."
- Do I "sneer and jeer" at people who don't think or act as I do? I use words to express my views and my disagreements with views different from mine. I also use words to characterize, and when I deem it legitimate, to criticize people's actions. But we all do that. My goodness, isn't that what you're doing when you I claim I "sneer and jeer" at people, and that I am "so blinded by (my) arrogance" that I "can't see two feet in front of (myself)"? Surely you don't consider yourself "a (conservative) who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you," do you?
- Does your commentary about my sneers, jeers, and blinding arrogance comport with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people"? Of course it does. There's no evidence in your posting history that you would even consider attacking another CD poster personally. [See, reformed? I'm capable of Trumpster Truth, too! I just claimed to be true what I needed/wanted to be true for this paragraph. Was it objectively true? No. But for this paragraph, it didn't need to be!!]
Here is a fact check, news is twisted. The Wall Street Journal just this week posted in two different demographics two very different headlines about the exact same story depending on if it was a liberal demographic or conservative.
Please provide links to those Journal's headlines. One of my pet peeves about the progressive media sources I rely on has to do with their occasional use of headlines that give wildly exaggerated summaries of the articles they introduce. In magnitude, those exaggerations seem like this:
- HEADLINE: "300 MPH winds destroy city"
- STORY: Higher than acceptable winds forced organizers to postpone the annual kite festival
The stories are usually fact-based, but some of the headlines provoke unjustified alarm and excitement. I hate that!
So I'd love to see the Journal headlines to which you refer.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Minimize, rationalize, and redefine to achieve a desired objective. Your post here is Trumpster Truth in action.
@reformed said:
Name where any one of my statements was false and then you can say I have a Trumpster understanding of objective Truth. Here is what I have seen and observed from you.The point of my previous post was that "your responses [to the summaries I provided of Donald Trump's beliefs regarding Obama's birthplace, Obama's wiretapping of Trump's phones, and the incidence of illegal aliens' voting in the 2016 election] reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth." For the reasons I think that post made clear, I stand by my claim.
So you can't point out the falsehoods then? Noted. You are deceptive in your posts. Noted.
You are a liberal who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you. You think you are better than everyone else and more educated than everyone else. You are so blinded by your arrogance you can't see two feet in front of you.
1. Am I a liberal? Yes, though I prefer the term "progressive."
Progressive is what liberals say to make themselves think they are making progress. Liberal is the proper term.
- Do I "sneer and jeer" at people who don't think or act as I do? I use words to express my views and my disagreements with views different from mine. I also use words to characterize, and when I deem it legitimate, to criticize people's actions. But we all do that. My goodness, isn't that what you're doing when you I claim I "sneer and jeer" at people, and that I am "so blinded by (my) arrogance" that I "can't see two feet in front of (myself)"? Surely you don't consider yourself "a (conservative) who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you," do you?
Yes, but I will admit it.
- Does your commentary about my sneers, jeers, and blinding arrogance comport with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people"? Of course it does. There's no evidence in your posting history that you would even consider attacking another CD poster personally. [See, reformed? I'm capable of Trumpster Truth, too! I just claimed to be true what I needed/wanted to be true for this paragraph. Was it objectively true? No. But for this paragraph, it didn't need to be!!]
I launched a defensive attack. You have been attacking me repeatedly both in public and private. So get off of your high horse about criticizing ideas and not people when you don't even follow that yourself.
Here is a fact check, news is twisted. The Wall Street Journal just this week posted in two different demographics two very different headlines about the exact same story depending on if it was a liberal demographic or conservative.
Please provide links to those Journal's headlines. One of my pet peeves about the progressive media sources I rely on has to do with their occasional use of headlines that give wildly exaggerated summaries of the articles they introduce. In magnitude, those exaggerations seem like this:
- HEADLINE: "300 MPH winds destroy city"
- STORY: Higher than acceptable winds forced organizers to postpone the annual kite festival
The stories are usually fact-based, but some of the headlines provoke unjustified alarm and excitement. I hate that!
So I'd love to see the Journal headlines to which you refer.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wsj-different-trump-headlines/
-
@reformed said:
So you can't point out the falsehoods then? Noted. You are deceptive in your posts. Noted.No deception. As I reported in my last post...
"The point of my previous post was that "The point of my previous post was that "your responses [to the summaries I provided of Donald Trump's beliefs regarding Obama's birthplace, Obama's wiretapping of Trump's phones, and the incidence of illegal aliens' voting in the 2016 election] reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth." For the reasons I think that post made clear, I stand by my claim. For the reasons I think that post made clear, I stand by my claim."
If the point of that paragraph is not clear, then I encourage you to revisit my post to which it refers, the post that read...
Your responses reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth, reformed. For you and other Trumpsters, truth is not objective; it's transactional. It's what you want or need it to be in the given circumstance. In the setting of our exchange, you need the truth to be that there be SOME explanation/defense/rationalization/minimization of the president's past statements. Under no circumstances can you agree to call the president's statements "lies," even if, objectively, that's what they were.
- So you say Mr Trump only "questioned" Obama's birthplace "without evidence," though objectively, we both know Trump did FAR more than that
- You accuse me of reliance on "semantics" to minimize the obvious falsehood of the president's wiretapping allegations
- And you say Trump had the crime right - illegals DID vote! - but he might have overstated their turnout.
Minimize, rationalize, and redefine to achieve a desired objective. Your post here is Trumpster Truth in action.
My point was that your responses to the three yes/no questions I posed to you reflected a Trumpster understanding of objective truth in that they minimized, rationalized, and redefined in order to achieve desired results.
Progressive is what liberals say to make themselves think they are making progress. Liberal is the proper term.
One of the most helpful pieces of advice I've ever received was from a leader in our denomination more than 25 years ago. I asked him how we could tone down the divisive rhetoric then extant between widely divergent theological communities in our communion. He recommended that we start by letting people label themselves. His counsel has blessed and served me well ever since. I recommend it to you.
- .... Surely you don't consider yourself "a (conservative) who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you," do you?
Yes, but I will admit it.
So you confess that you sneer and jeer at people who don't think and act like you. Confession is good, but in the teachings of Jesus is usually followed by repentance. Do you intend also to repent of your sneering and jeering?
By the way, I don't confess to such behavior. I control - imperfectly, no doubt - the content and direction of my posts; when it comes to other CD posters, with great passion I abide by the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation.
The exception to that rule are the occasions when I feel compelled to highlight the inappropriate content of others' posts to me. For example, when you question my sanity or honesty because I disagree with you, I will likely volley that adolescent silliness back to you in a snarky way. But in my view, I'm responding, not initiating. I'm holding a mirror of accountability in front of you in the hope that when juvenile rhetoric such as that comes back at you in the guise of another's post, you'll decide not to employ it yourself going forward. So far, I admit, my strategy has not worked.
- Does your commentary about my sneers, jeers, and blinding arrogance comport with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people"?
I launched a defensive attack. You have been attacking me repeatedly both in public and private. So get off of your high horse about criticizing ideas and not people when you don't even follow that yourself.
"A defensive attack"? That sounds quasi-oxymoronic to me.
As noted above, I do follow the CD expectation, except when I feel the need to hold people accountable for what I believe is inappropriate commentary.
For example, earlier in this thread, of this week's Supreme Court ruling on the Trump travel ban you wrote...
"This is a huge win for the administration. It was lawful all along as those of us who are sane understood."
In my view, your reference to the sanity of those who opine on the Court's ruling was gratuitous, the kind of insult heard on junior and senior high campuses. To call attention to it, I responded this way...
"Seems like the world is just a little bit safer when in its rulings the Supreme Court sides with the "sane." But sanity's victories are often insanity's burdens, so let's pray for the insane among us, people - like the four dissenting Court justices - alarmed and troubled by the Court's ruling on the travel ban.
"In these morally and politically turbulent times, insanity can be both blessing and curse. In the aftermath of the Court's ruling today, as reformed's post helpfully reminds us, for many of our nation's insane it is more the latter than the former.
"Pray hard."
That's pure snark, I acknowledge. But it's snark about your reference to sanity, not about you personally.
Don't want to deal with such snark from me? Don't question the sanity or honesty of people who disagree with you.
As for our exchange of PMs and any "attacks" against you I issued in them, I'll gladly consent to posting those PMs in a public thread. Just say the word.
Here is a fact check, news is twisted. The Wall Street Journal just this week posted in two different demographics two very different headlines about the exact same story depending on if it was a liberal demographic or conservative.
Please provide links to those Journal's headlines.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wsj-different-trump-headlines/
Here, we run into issues:
- Your initial reference to the two Wall Street Journal headlines claimed that the paper had posted them "just this week." The snopes.com link you subsequently provided reports... (emphasis added)
"On 1 September 2016, a photograph purportedly showing two editions of The Wall Street Journal with markedly different front page headlines regarding Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s stance on immigration was circulated on social media:"
So the WSJ created the two headlines almost two years ago, not "just this week."
- Your initial reference to the headlines also claimed that the paper had published them in varying parts of the country "depending on if it was a liberal demographic or conservative." But the snopes.com article to which YOU provided a link directly refutes your claim: (emphasis added)
"This image was passed around on the Internet accompanied by the claim that the Wall Street Journal had deliberately published one headline, “Trump Softens His Tone,” in a pro-Trump market area in an attempt to sway readers away from the the GOP nominee, and the other headline, “Trump Talks Tough on Wall,” in a non-Trump market area to bolster support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
"However, these opposing headline editions were not distributed to different political or geographic markets, nor were they intended to influence voters."
The snopes.com piece explains the origins of the headlines with assistance from the WSJ's vice-president of communications. The differing number of stars atop the two front pages' mastheads signify publication at two different times of the day. One of those two front pages was created after Trump met with the Mexican president, but BEFORE his evening political rally later that day. The other front page was published AFTER the rally.
As a politico, you probably remember that day. Trump had a friendly in-and-out session with the Mexican president in the morning, after which he sounded upbeat and encouraging (I remember his saying in the press availability that the question of who would pay for the border wall hadn't come up). But then later that day, his rally speech returned to his hardline approach to immigration and the border wall.
One headline was written and published after the morning meeting in Mexico. The other headline was written and published after the hardline campaign rally. THAT'S why they differed. Contrary to your original claim, the headlines did NOT go to different parts of the country "depending on if it was a liberal demographic or conservative." Both headlines - both editions of the paper - went to ALL parts of the country.
What's ironic about this, reformed, is that you introduced your initial reference to the WSJ headlines with the words "Here is a fact check. News is twisted," but then 1) misrepresented by nearly two years the publication date of the headlines, and 2) misrepresented the origin and intentions of the headlines as reported in the article to which YOU later provided a link.
Did I just "attack" you? No. I held a mirror of accountability up to the claims of your posts.
Are the two errors of fact evident in your presentation of the two headlines an example of Trumpster Truth? Not necessarily, but I think it's fair to say they are certainly in keeping with the kind of misrepresentations for which the president is infamous.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
So you can't point out the falsehoods then? Noted. You are deceptive in your posts. Noted.No deception. As I reported in my last post...
You can say that all you want...but that doesn't make it so.
"The point of my previous post was that "The point of my previous post was that "your responses [to the summaries I provided of Donald Trump's beliefs regarding Obama's birthplace, Obama's wiretapping of Trump's phones, and the incidence of illegal aliens' voting in the 2016 election] reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth." For the reasons I think that post made clear, I stand by my claim. For the reasons I think that post made clear, I stand by my claim."
If the point of that paragraph is not clear, then I encourage you to revisit my post to which it refers, the post that read...
Your point is clear, you were going to belittle no matter what the response I gave was.
Your responses reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth, reformed. For you and other Trumpsters, truth is not objective; it's transactional. It's what you want or need it to be in the given circumstance. In the setting of our exchange, you need the truth to be that there be SOME explanation/defense/rationalization/minimization of the president's past statements. Under no circumstances can you agree to call the president's statements "lies," even if, objectively, that's what they were.
- So you say Mr Trump only "questioned" Obama's birthplace "without evidence," though objectively, we both know Trump did FAR more than that
- You accuse me of reliance on "semantics" to minimize the obvious falsehood of the president's wiretapping allegations
- And you say Trump had the crime right - illegals DID vote! - but he might have overstated their turnout.
Minimize, rationalize, and redefine to achieve a desired objective. Your post here is Trumpster Truth in action.
My point was that your responses to the three yes/no questions I posed to you reflected a Trumpster understanding of objective truth in that they minimized, rationalized, and redefined in order to achieve desired results.
No, my responses reflect reality.
Progressive is what liberals say to make themselves think they are making progress. Liberal is the proper term.
One of the most helpful pieces of advice I've ever received was from a leader in our denomination more than 25 years ago. I asked him how we could tone down the divisive rhetoric then extant between widely divergent theological communities in our communion. He recommended that we start by letting people label themselves. His counsel has blessed and served me well ever since. I recommend it to you.
That's nonsense. It is that kind of thinking that legitimizes LGBT nonsense and having boys think they are girls etc. So you got, and accepted, some pretty bad advice.
- .... Surely you don't consider yourself "a (conservative) who sneers and jeers at anyone who does not think like you and act like you," do you?
Yes, but I will admit it.
So you confess that you sneer and jeer at people who don't think and act like you. Confession is good, but in the teachings of Jesus is usually followed by repentance. Do you intend also to repent of your sneering and jeering?
By the way, I don't confess to such behavior. I control - imperfectly, no doubt - the content and direction of my posts; when it comes to other CD posters, with great passion I abide by the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation.
The exception to that rule are the occasions when I feel compelled to highlight the inappropriate content of others' posts to me. For example, when you question my sanity or honesty because I disagree with you, I will likely volley that adolescent silliness back to you in a snarky way. But in my view, I'm responding, not initiating. I'm holding a mirror of accountability in front of you in the hope that when juvenile rhetoric such as that comes back at you in the guise of another's post, you'll decide not to employ it yourself going forward. So far, I admit, my strategy has not worked.
HAHAHAHA!!!! Bill Coley: "I don't break the rules except when I feel compelled to."
So in other words you are a hypocrite. Noted.
- Does your commentary about my sneers, jeers, and blinding arrogance comport with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people"?
I launched a defensive attack. You have been attacking me repeatedly both in public and private. So get off of your high horse about criticizing ideas and not people when you don't even follow that yourself.
"A defensive attack"? That sounds quasi-oxymoronic to me.
As noted above, I do follow the CD expectation, except when I feel the need to hold people accountable for what I believe is inappropriate commentary.
Yep, Bill follows the rules except when he doesn't. Oh and by the way, he is the sole arbiter of what is appropriate on these forums and therefore is above the rules. Hopefully the site will add that into the terms and conditions in the near future so we know your elite status.
Until then, you are a hypocrite and hardly anyone to lecture anyone about the rules. You break them as much as anyone else.
For example, earlier in this thread, of this week's Supreme Court ruling on the Trump travel ban you wrote...
"This is a huge win for the administration. It was lawful all along as those of us who are sane understood."
In my view, your reference to the sanity of those who opine on the Court's ruling was gratuitous, the kind of insult heard on junior and senior high campuses. To call attention to it, I responded this way...
See you break the rule in that point alone. Hypocrite.
"Seems like the world is just a little bit safer when in its rulings the Supreme Court sides with the "sane." But sanity's victories are often insanity's burdens, so let's pray for the insane among us, people - like the four dissenting Court justices - alarmed and troubled by the Court's ruling on the travel ban.
"In these morally and politically turbulent times, insanity can be both blessing and curse. In the aftermath of the Court's ruling today, as reformed's post helpfully reminds us, for many of our nation's insane it is more the latter than the former.
"Pray hard."
That's pure snark, I acknowledge. But it's snark about your reference to sanity, not about you personally.
That's laughable Bill. Above you clearly said I was acting like a high schooler. That is attacking me, not an idea. Hypocrite.
Don't want to deal with such snark from me? Don't question the sanity or honesty of people who disagree with you.
I don't care if you are snarky. That's not my point. My point is you are a hypocrite when you lecture others about the same tactic. Hypocrite Bill.
-
@reformed said:
You can say that all you want...but that doesn't make it so.If every time I say it, it's true, then it does make it so. In this case, as my previous previous posts made clear, I was critiquing your responses to a series of yes/no questions. That's what I said. That's what I did.
If the point of that paragraph is not clear, then I encourage you to revisit my post to which it refers, the post that read...
Your point is clear, you were going to belittle no matter what the response I gave was.
I belittle Trumpster Truth because Trumpster Truth is not truth.
Case in point: Did three million illegals vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 as the president claimed? The answer is no. Will he ever admit that he was wrong? No. That's Trumpster Truth. Did YOU acknowledge that the president was wrong? No. Your response was "I don't know if there is factual proof of that or not. I do know illegals vote. How many? I can't say. Though I doubt it swung the popular vote." So three million COULD have voted! You don't know whether there's proof of that or not! But since they probably didn't all vote for the same candidate, you doubt they swung the popular vote. That's Trumpster Truth.
Your responses reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth, reformed. For you and other Trumpsters, truth is not objective; it's transactional. It's what you want or need it to be in the given circumstance. In the setting of our exchange, you need the truth to be that there be SOME explanation/defense/rationalization/minimization of the president's past statements. Under no circumstances can you agree to call the president's statements "lies," even if, objectively, that's what they were.
No, my responses reflect reality.
Trumpster Truth NEVER admits error. Ask our president.
That's nonsense. It is that kind of thinking that legitimizes LGBT nonsense and having boys think they are girls etc. So you got, and accepted, some pretty bad advice.
You're welcome to your views. Regardless, I encourage you to welcome the advice that denominational leader gave me.
By the way, I don't confess to such behavior. I control - imperfectly, no doubt - the content and direction of my posts; when it comes to other CD posters, with great passion I abide by the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation.
The exception to that rule are the occasions when I feel compelled to highlight the inappropriate content of others' posts to me. For example, when you question my sanity or honesty because I disagree with you, I will likely volley that adolescent silliness back to you in a snarky way. But in my view, I'm responding, not initiating. I'm holding a mirror of accountability in front of you in the hope that when juvenile rhetoric such as that comes back at you in the guise of another's post, you'll decide not to employ it yourself going forward. So far, I admit, my strategy has not worked.
HAHAHAHA!!!! Bill Coley: "I don't break the rules except when I feel compelled to."
You're right to call me on this, reformed, as well as to toss at me the handfuls of "hypocrite" labels you included in your post, but NOT for the reason you probably think.
I erred badly when I called my snarky responses to the "inappropriate content" in others' posts an "exception to [the] rule" that "with great passion I abide by the 'criticize ideas, not people' expectation" of these forums. In fact, those snarky responses are NOT violations of that rule because they are NOT criticisms of people, but rather of the content people choose to include in their posts.
Revisit the previously quoted example of my snarky response to your suggestion that "sane" people knew the president's travel ban was constitutional. That snark was not about you; it was about your "sane" claim.
My snark is always about the content people post, not about the people who post it.
In my previous post, what I SHOULD have posted - but clearly did NOT!! - was that my snarky comments about what I consider to be inappropriate content in others' posts are exceptions to my practice of commenting on the issues under discussion. As I DID eventually note in my posts, those comments are my way of holding up mirrors of accountability (e.g. "See how silly it sounds to question the sanity of people who disagree with you?!") But they are not criticisms of people.
That's laughable Bill. Above you clearly said I was acting like a high schooler. That is attacking me, not an idea. Hypocrite.
Read my comment again:
"In my view, your reference to the sanity of those who opine on the Court's ruling was gratuitous, the kind of insult heard on junior and senior high campuses."
Clearly, my comment was about "your reference to the sanity of those who opine on the Court's ruling," a comment I labeled an "the kind of insult heard on junior and senior high campuses." I criticized your reference - which I considered to be an insult - not you.
Something tells me you won't see a difference between people and the content of their posts (neither did dct112685). You're welcome to your views, but in my posts and in my snark (!) there's a big difference between them.
I don't care if you are snarky. That's not my point. My point is you are a hypocrite when you lecture others about the same tactic. Hypocrite Bill.
For the reasons explained above, I understand but ultimately reject the "hypocrite" label.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You can say that all you want...but that doesn't make it so.If every time I say it, it's true, then it does make it so. In this case, as my previous previous posts made clear, I was critiquing your responses to a series of yes/no questions. That's what I said. That's what I did.
Like I said, just because you say so doesn't make it so. You aren't the sole arbiter of truth.
If the point of that paragraph is not clear, then I encourage you to revisit my post to which it refers, the post that read...
Your point is clear, you were going to belittle no matter what the response I gave was.
I belittle Trumpster Truth because Trumpster Truth is not truth.
Of course you have come up with this term "Trumpster truth" to belittle people, not to attack what they actually said. Case? You have not yet admitted that what I said in response to you was true, or have yet to show how what I said in response to your questions was false. Instead, you lable me as someone subscribing to "Trumpster Truth"
Case in point: Did three million illegals vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 as the president claimed? The answer is no. Will he ever admit that he was wrong? No. That's Trumpster Truth. Did YOU acknowledge that the president was wrong? No. Your response was "I don't know if there is factual proof of that or not. I do know illegals vote. How many? I can't say. Though I doubt it swung the popular vote." So three million COULD have voted! You don't know whether there's proof of that or not! But since they probably didn't all vote for the same candidate, you doubt they swung the popular vote. That's Trumpster Truth.
No, that is actual truth. We do not know the actual answer. I don't, you don't.
Your responses reflect a Trumpster understanding of objective truth, reformed. For you and other Trumpsters, truth is not objective; it's transactional. It's what you want or need it to be in the given circumstance. In the setting of our exchange, you need the truth to be that there be SOME explanation/defense/rationalization/minimization of the president's past statements. Under no circumstances can you agree to call the president's statements "lies," even if, objectively, that's what they were.
No, my responses reflect reality.
Trumpster Truth NEVER admits error. Ask our president.
That's nonsense. It is that kind of thinking that legitimizes LGBT nonsense and having boys think they are girls etc. So you got, and accepted, some pretty bad advice.
You're welcome to your views. Regardless, I encourage you to welcome the advice that denominational leader gave me.
I don't take stupid advice.
By the way, I don't confess to such behavior. I control - imperfectly, no doubt - the content and direction of my posts; when it comes to other CD posters, with great passion I abide by the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation.
The exception to that rule are the occasions when I feel compelled to highlight the inappropriate content of others' posts to me. For example, when you question my sanity or honesty because I disagree with you, I will likely volley that adolescent silliness back to you in a snarky way. But in my view, I'm responding, not initiating. I'm holding a mirror of accountability in front of you in the hope that when juvenile rhetoric such as that comes back at you in the guise of another's post, you'll decide not to employ it yourself going forward. So far, I admit, my strategy has not worked.
HAHAHAHA!!!! Bill Coley: "I don't break the rules except when I feel compelled to."
You're right to call me on this, reformed, as well as to toss at me the handfuls of "hypocrite" labels you included in your post, but NOT for the reason you probably think.
I erred badly when I called my snarky responses to the "inappropriate content" in others' posts an "exception to [the] rule" that "with great passion I abide by the 'criticize ideas, not people' expectation" of these forums. In fact, those snarky responses are NOT violations of that rule because they are NOT criticisms of people, but rather of the content people choose to include in their posts.
Revisit the previously quoted example of my snarky response to your suggestion that "sane" people knew the president's travel ban was constitutional. That snark was not about you; it was about your "sane" claim.
My snark is always about the content people post, not about the people who post it.
In my previous post, what I SHOULD have posted - but clearly did NOT!! - was that my snarky comments about what I consider to be inappropriate content in others' posts are exceptions to my practice of commenting on the issues under discussion. As I DID eventually note in my posts, those comments are my way of holding up mirrors of accountability (e.g. "See how silly it sounds to question the sanity of people who disagree with you?!") But they are not criticisms of people.
We disagree that they are about the content and not the person. The rest of the forum can determine whether you attack people or their ideas or passive agressively do both.
That's laughable Bill. Above you clearly said I was acting like a high schooler. That is attacking me, not an idea. Hypocrite.
Read my comment again:
"In my view, your reference to the sanity of those who opine on the Court's ruling was gratuitous, the kind of insult heard on junior and senior high campuses."
Clearly, my comment was about "your reference to the sanity of those who opine on the Court's ruling," a comment I labeled an "the kind of insult heard on junior and senior high campuses." I criticized your reference - which I considered to be an insult - not you.
Again, we will let others decide. But you are not attacking my idea. You are attacking how I conduct myself.
Something tells me you won't see a difference between people and the content of their posts (neither did dct112685). You're welcome to your views, but in my posts and in my snark (!) there's a big difference between them.
And again, you ridiculous attack of comparing me to a former member. You privately have basically called me a liar for saying I am not that person. That is attacking me, not an idea.
I don't care if you are snarky. That's not my point. My point is you are a hypocrite when you lecture others about the same tactic. Hypocrite Bill.
For the reasons explained above, I understand but ultimately reject the "hypocrite" label.
You can reject it all you want, but you still are one. Quite honestly it is ridiculous to assert you don't do the very things you so vehemently criticize others of doing.
Hypocrite Extreme. Granted, you are a liberal so being a hypocrite is kind of a pre-requisite.
