A Challenge to My Liberal Friends

reformed

I dare our friends on the left to say 3 nice things about Donald Trump as well as 3 things they have appreciated he has done for the country so far. I dare you!

GaoLu

[crickets]

Bill_Coley

Challenge Offered. Challenge Met.

Three Nice Things about Donald Trump:
1. He’s richly complimentary of the people he likes
2. His unscripted presentations to campaign rallies come across as authentic and genuine
3. He offers public witness to his love for his children

Three things I appreciate that he has done for the country so far:
1. He has introduced the country to the idea and possible benefits of deregulation. I think some - though certainly not all - of the deregulatory moves his administration has taken have proved beneficial. The larger benefit of his administration’s actions has been the introduction of deregulation as a legitimate course of government action.
2. Deregulation has also contributed to what I think is a more pro-business climate in the country. The number of jobs created in the manufacturing sector during the last eighteen months has been impressive. Perhaps partially due to deregulation, and partially due to last year’s corporate tax rate cut, likely due to other factors as well, factors that have, overall, created a more pro-business climate in the country.
3. The most complex of my three expression of appreciation is for the way the president has shaken up the structure of American politics. The “rules” have changed, particularly regarding party loyalty. The president’s supporters don’t seem to care whether other elements of their party’s structure endorse the president’s actions or conduct; THEY do! In theory, I appreciate the presence of chaos/unpredictability within political parties - we need change in our system - but in practice, Trump’s brand of loyalty is far more divisive than helpful.

---

Now, my challenge for my Trumpster friends:

You asked me for a total of six responses, reformed. I complied in full. Now I ask you, Gao Lu, other Trump supporters, and anyone else, for that matter, for three - but three direct, on-point responses:

• No distraction or misdirection
• No changing the subject
• No criticizing the request, the poster who made it, or the intentions behind it
• No response which later you'll claim you made only because I asked for it, and not because you actually believed it
• No refusal to respond directly because you don’t like the request, you don’t think it matters, you don’t think it deserves a response, or you don’t think it can be answered

Provide what you believe is an objectively, indisputably true - i.e. factually accurate - accounting and characterization of the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements Donald Trump has made during his eighteen months in office. Do so by...

1. ...pasting the following statement in your reply, placing an “X” by your personal response:

I believe the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements president Trump has made while in office numbers in the (choose one)
____ Single digits ___ Tens ___ Hundreds ___ Thousands

(BTW: “I don’t know and no one does,” “I don’t care,” “It doesn’t matter,” and “I have no way of knowing/guessing” are NOT acceptable responses. The only acceptable response is your “X” by one of the four options)

2. ...providing one or more links to sources of objectively factual data and analysis that support your response.

[NO “false facts.” NO “Internet facts.” NO “Bill facts.” NO “facts” other than ones you trust, believe, and stand behind]

3. ...providing a brief summary of your personal characterization - specifically and only! - of the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements President Trump has made during his first 18 months, and how the quantity and frequency of his untruthfulness compares to other presidents, politicians, and persons you know.

For example, I believe the president’s mendacity is a stain on the presidency, that it raises doubts about the truthfulness of almost everything he says, that it reflects a profound character flaw. I believe Mr Trump speaks more falsehoods than any president in American history and any person I have ever met or heard of, BY FAR. But that’s my characterization. What’s yours? (ONLY about the president’s truthfulness!)

---

That’s the challenge. To quote reformed: I dare you!

GaoLu

I deeply appreciate the few positive elements of your response, Bill, and feel deep respect for what you wrote. That is a first ever that I recall.

My hat is off to @reformed who brought this about.

Regarding the Second Critical part, I think we have the usual Billish distraction / Red Herring / politicised negativity. Please post your off-topic negative demands in a different thread.

Practice what you mother--I dare you.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
I deeply appreciate the few positive elements of your response, Bill, and feel deep respect for what you wrote. That is a first ever that I recall.

My hat is off to @reformed who brought this about.

Regarding the Second Critical part, I think we have the usual Billish distraction / Red Herring / politicised negativity. Please post your off-topic negative demands in a different thread.

Practice what you mother--I dare you.

EXACTLY the response I expected from you, Gao Lu.

GaoLu

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:
I dare our friends on the left to say 3 nice things about Donald Trump as well as 3 things they have appreciated he has done for the country so far. I dare you!

It's up to you, reformed. Gao Lu won't meet my challenge. Will you?

I met your challenge: directly, without question or equivocation. I didn't critique your wording or intentions. I didn't contend that it was unfair to ask me to declare three "nice" things about Donald Trump, or three Trump achievements for the country. I simply gave you the information you requested. Will you now give me the information I requested of you via similarly direct responses?

I knew Gao Lu wouldn't meet my challenge. Will you?

GaoLu

You didn't meet the challenge at all. You failed the dare. See non-internet linked (Non-Billium) proof above.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

Challenge Offered. Challenge Met.

Three Nice Things about Donald Trump:
1. He’s richly complimentary of the people he likes
2. His unscripted presentations to campaign rallies come across as authentic and genuine
3. He offers public witness to his love for his children

Three things I appreciate that he has done for the country so far:
1. He has introduced the country to the idea and possible benefits of deregulation. I think some - though certainly not all - of the deregulatory moves his administration has taken have proved beneficial. The larger benefit of his administration’s actions has been the introduction of deregulation as a legitimate course of government action.
2. Deregulation has also contributed to what I think is a more pro-business climate in the country. The number of jobs created in the manufacturing sector during the last eighteen months has been impressive. Perhaps partially due to deregulation, and partially due to last year’s corporate tax rate cut, likely due to other factors as well, factors that have, overall, created a more pro-business climate in the country.
3. The most complex of my three expression of appreciation is for the way the president has shaken up the structure of American politics. The “rules” have changed, particularly regarding party loyalty. The president’s supporters don’t seem to care whether other elements of their party’s structure endorse the president’s actions or conduct; THEY do! In theory, I appreciate the presence of chaos/unpredictability within political parties - we need change in our system - but in practice, Trump’s brand of loyalty is far more divisive than helpful.

---

Now, my challenge for my Trumpster friends:

You asked me for a total of six responses, reformed. I complied in full. Now I ask you, Gao Lu, other Trump supporters, and anyone else, for that matter, for three - but three direct, on-point responses:

• No distraction or misdirection
• No changing the subject
• No criticizing the request, the poster who made it, or the intentions behind it
• No response which later you'll claim you made only because I asked for it, and not because you actually believed it
• No refusal to respond directly because you don’t like the request, you don’t think it matters, you don’t think it deserves a response, or you don’t think it can be answered

Provide what you believe is an objectively, indisputably true - i.e. factually accurate - accounting and characterization of the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements Donald Trump has made during his eighteen months in office. Do so by...

1. ...pasting the following statement in your reply, placing an “X” by your personal response:

I believe the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements president Trump has made while in office numbers in the (choose one)
____ Single digits ___ Tens ___ Hundreds ___ Thousands ____ Depends on who you ask

(BTW: “I don’t know and no one does,” “I don’t care,” “It doesn’t matter,” and “I have no way of knowing/guessing” are NOT acceptable responses. The only acceptable response is your “X” by one of the four options)

____ Depends on who you ask. A lot of the false or misleading statments depend on how you look at them.

2. ...providing one or more links to sources of objectively factual data and analysis that support your response.

[NO “false facts.” NO “Internet facts.” NO “Bill facts.” NO “facts” other than ones you trust, believe, and stand behind]

For example: The Washington Post in the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/01/president-trump-has-made-3001-false-or-misleading-claims-so-far/?utm_term=.4e86ca162ec2 lists one of his lies as saying he took credit for 3 million jobs since the election but he took office three months later and only 2.5 million jobs. It can, and has, been argued that a lot of those jobs were created in anticipation of the policies President Trump was going to be bringing with his administration.

This is just one example but it goes with many other examples. So while there are "thousands" of "documented" cases, it really depends on context and how you look at the statement. Most of these statements are harmless.

3. ...providing a brief summary of your personal characterization - specifically and only! - of the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements President Trump has made during his first 18 months, and how the quantity and frequency of his untruthfulness compares to other presidents, politicians, and persons you know.

Once again, it depends on how you look at it. I've not seen any major misteps yet that can be proven. On the other hand, Obama said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and that screwed millions of Americans.

For example, I believe the president’s mendacity is a stain on the presidency, that it raises doubts about the truthfulness of almost everything he says, that it reflects a profound character flaw. I believe Mr Trump speaks more falsehoods than any president in American history and any person I have ever met or heard of, BY FAR. But that’s my characterization. What’s yours? (ONLY about the president’s truthfulness!)

Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.

---

That’s the challenge. To quote reformed: I dare you!

Challenge accepted and fulfilled.

@GaoLu said:
You didn't meet the challenge at all. You failed the dare. See non-internet linked (Non-Billium) proof above.

I agree.

Bill_Coley

Let's hear from Gao Lu, his reaction to my response to reformed's challenge:

@GaoLu said:
I deeply appreciate the few positive elements of your response, Bill, and feel deep respect for what you wrote. That is a first ever that I recall.

Now, let's hear from Gao Lu, his reaction to my response to reformed's challenge:

@GaoLu said:
You didn't meet the challenge at all. You failed the dare. See non-internet linked (Non-Billium) proof above.

So Gao Lu "deeply (appreciates)" and feels "deep respect" for my response to reformed's challenge, a response that "didn't meet the challenge at all."

You might be confused by Gao Lu's "deep" appreciation and respect for a response that in his view wasn't at all responsive to reformed's challenge. I certainly understand your confusion. The way I've resolved my confusion is to remember that Gao Lu has ALSO posted that he "(doesn't) care for (President) Trump and never did," EVEN THOUGH, according to his posts, he believes Trump is...

• ...doing a "phenomenally great job"
• ...an "amazing president" for whom his "respect is rising daily"
• ..."leading as no man has led since Reagan"
• ..."God's blessing on America"
• ..."a great man"
• ..."a great leader"
• and ..."clearly God’s will and America’s choice"

I've decided that anyone who can say all those glowing things about President Trump and STILL not care for him, can also feel "deep" respect and appreciation for my response to reformed's challenge... that "didn't meet the challenge at all."

@reformed said:
____ Depends on who you ask. A lot of the false or misleading statments depend on how you look at them.

In the case of the challenge I presented, there's no question as to whom I asked: I asked you. Hence, your response to the president's "false and misleading statements" depends only on how YOU look at them.

For example: The Washington Post in the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/01/president-trump-has-made-3001-false-or-misleading-claims-so-far/?utm_term=.4e86ca162ec2 lists one of his lies as saying he took credit for 3 million jobs since the election but he took office three months later and only 2.5 million jobs. It can, and has, been argued that a lot of those jobs were created in anticipation of the policies President Trump was going to be bringing with his administration.

The Washington Post's count/archive of the president's false and misleading statements is a widely acknowledged source of fact-based information on the subject.

This is just one example but it goes with many other examples. So while there are "thousands" of "documented" cases, it really depends on context and how you look at the statement. Most of these statements are harmless.

The first part of my challenge asked you to estimate the order of magnitude of the total number of false and misleading statements the president has made while in office - whether that total was likely a one, two, three, or four digit number. My challenge did NOT ask your estimate to differentiate between "harmless" and "harmful" false or misleading statements. As I'm sure you know, a false or misleading statement is STILL false or misleading regardless of the level of "harm" consumers of that statement believe it inflicts.

Because your response does NOT provide a direct response to it, I again present to you item 1 from my challenge, and ask you to respond - based on the way YOU view the president's statements, and without regard to the "harm" those statements may inflict:

1. (Paste) the following statement in your reply, placing an “X” by your personal response:

I believe the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements president Trump has made while in office numbers in the (choose one)
___ Single digits ___ Tens ___ Hundreds ___ Thousands

.

Once again, it depends on how you look at it. I've not seen any major misteps yet that can be proven. On the other hand, Obama said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and that screwed millions of Americans.

This part of your response again assesses the impact/harm/severity of the president's false and misleading statements. NOTHING in the challenge I presented asked for such analysis. My challenge asked for two assessments, neither of which your response provides:
1. Your assessment of the numerical magnitude of "the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements president Trump has made while in office"
2. And "a brief summary of your personal characterization - specifically and only! - of the number of demonstrably false and misleading statements President Trump has made during his first 18 months, and how the quantity and frequency of his untruthfulness compares to other presidents, politicians, and persons you know."

That is, my challenge asked you a) to estimate, as I said earlier, whether, as YOU understand it, the number of false or misleading statements the president has made is "likely a one, two, three, or four digit number," and b) to characterize the number and frequency of the president's false or misleading statements, and how that number and frequency compare with the number and frequency of false statements made by other presidents, politicians, and people you know.

Your response to my challenge provides neither of those requested pieces of information. So I present challenge items 1 & 3 to you again, in hopes that you will, as I requested, respond directly. (NOTE: Your respond DID respond directly to my challenge's second item, a request for fact-based sources of information.)

_For example, I believe the president’s mendacity is a stain on the presidency, that it raises doubts about the truthfulness of almost everything he says, that it reflects a profound character flaw.

Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.

Their feelings are their feelings.

I believe Mr Trump speaks more falsehoods than any president in American history and any person I have ever met or heard of, BY FAR. But that’s my characterization. What’s yours? (ONLY about the president’s truthfulness!)_

Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.

"Conservatives feel" that Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and others all have "(spoken) more falsehoods than any president in American history and any person they have ever met or heard of, BY FAR." Usually when people "feel" things, they don't have proof of them, but I'll ask anyway: What is the factual basis for those conservatives' feelings?

Challenge accepted and fulfilled.

You certainly offered a more substantive response to my challenge than did Gao Lu, but because you offered NO direct response to its items 1 and 3, I disagree with your conclusion and ask again for your direct response to those items.

@GaoLu said:
You didn't meet the challenge at all. You failed the dare. See non-internet linked (Non-Billium) proof above.

I agree.

You asked for "3 nice things about Donald Trump," and in my response, I gave you three.

You also asked for "3 things (I) have appreciated he has done for the country so far," and in my response, I gave you three.

I responded directly to your requests - without question, equivocation, or complaint or quibble about the number of each item you requested, or any other aspect of the challenge you presented.

How did I not "meet (your) challenge at all"?

GaoLu

@Bill_Coley said:

So Gao Lu "deeply (appreciates)" and feels "deep respect" for my response to reformed's challenge, a response that "didn't meet the challenge at all."

You might be confused by Gao Lu's "deep" appreciation and respect for a response that in his view wasn't at all responsive to reformed's challenge. I certainly understand your confusion.

1. you are amazingly easy to confuse.
2. You are lying about being confused.

I think both may be entirely true.

It's like this:
When my daughter took up violin as a child, she screeched and howled and made horrible noises. Yet I told her she was doing great! I was sincere. Every day she made progress. One day she played "Boil 'em Cabbage Down," (think Billium) and it actually wasn't half bad!

Likewise, you made a new start. We wanted to reward you. Oh, you came back in an angry frenzy, snarling like a polecat. That's ok. Still, we want to reward even the tiniest bit of progress.

But no. you utterly failed the dare. You did a teensy bit of good and then smeared all over it with your personal inner nasty, green bilious (think Billium) poison. You added all kinds of trash to a little bit of good--that isn't meeting the dare. It is an utter fail. Smoke that, Bill.

You aren't fooling anyone--probably not even yourself.

The way I've resolved my confusion is to remember that Gao Lu has ALSO posted that he "(doesn't) care for (President) Trump and never did," EVEN THOUGH, according to his posts, he believes Trump is...

• ...doing a "phenomenally great job"
• ...an "amazing president" for whom his "respect is rising daily"
• ..."leading as no man has led since Reagan"
• ..."God's blessing on America"
• ..."a great man"
• ..."a great leader"
• and ..."clearly God’s will and America’s choice"

I've decided that anyone who can say all those glowing things about President Trump and STILL not care for him, can also feel "deep" respect and appreciation for my response to reformed's challenge... that "didn't meet the challenge at all."

Exactly. Say it some more. Repeat this as often as you will, because I am rather pleased with the ring of it.

If you don't fully understand it, then you must be either unbelievably lacking in marbles or lying. I lean toward both. Let's watch you thrash about now if that confuses you too.

You asked for "3 nice things about Donald Trump," and in my response, I gave you three.

Good job, Bill! You are to be lauded for this first --note that this is being repeated for positive rewards.

You also asked for "3 things (I) have appreciated he has done for the country so far," and in my response, I gave you three.

Bill, You did a wonderful job! (Think about the new violin)

I responded directly to your requests - without question, equivocation, or complaint or quibble about the number of each item you requested or any other aspect of the challenge you presented.

How did I not "meet (your) challenge at all"?

You created breaking wind and clouds of smoke by smoking a huge red herring in the middle of what you claim was keeping the dare. You did a little good--congratulations!--you trashed it deliberately with Billium and lost the dare spectacularly.

We are calling you on it Bill. Over and over. That is dishonest and stinks and is 180 degrees off-topic. Stop trying to defend it. Maybe trolling is what you intend.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
1. you are amazingly easy to confuse.
2. You are lying about being confused.

I think both may be entirely true.

I'm glad you do. Unfortunately your analogy is not analogous.

In the case I raised, your statement #1 is "Donald Trump is a great leader, an amazing, God-given president, etc." Your statement #2 is "I don't care for Donald Trump." The question raised by those two statements is "If statement #1 is true, how can statement #2 be true?" (or reverse the numbers; it doesn't matter) - "If you believe Donald Trump is all those things, how can it be that you don't care for him?"

That question makes sense because to a reasonable observer, the two statements to which it refers almost necessarily affect each other. A reasonable observer would conclude that a person's assessment of Trump's performance as president would certainly influence, perhaps even decide, the level of his or her care for Trump.

Now look at the analogy you offer, and create the same question. Substituting as appropriate, the question becomes, "If you are amazingly easy to confuse, how can it be that you are lying about being confused?" Or, for a more blatant example of the same truth, reverse the order of the statements to produce this question: "If you are lying about being confused, how can it be that you amazingly easy to confuse?" A reasonable observer would NOT conclude there is any necessary relation between the ease with which one can be confused and his or her lying about such confusion. Those two conditions do not necessarily affect each other, certainly not in the way the conditions of my two statements do.

Near the end of his life, advancing dementia made my dad very easy to confuse. Never did it cross our minds that the ease with which he was confused had anything to do with whether he was lying to us when, repeatedly, he told us he wasn't confused.

Your analogy's statements have nothing close to the influence on each other that the statements of my argument have on each other, which means your analogy is not analogous.

It's like this:
When my daughter took up violin as a child, she screeched and howled and made horrible noises. Yet I told her she was doing great! I was sincere. Every day she made progress. One day she played "Boil 'em Cabbage Down," (think Billium) and it actually wasn't half bad!

So, when you say Trump is a "great man," a "great leader," and an "amazing," "God-given president" who's "leading as no man has done since Reagan," you mean "great" and "amazing" and "God-given" in the "screechy," "howling," and "horrible" sense of those words?

Likewise, you made a new start. We wanted to reward you. Oh, you came back in an angry frenzy, snarling like a polecat. That's ok. Still, we want to reward even the tiniest bit of progress.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

But no. you utterly failed the dare. You did a teensy bit of good and then smeared all over it with your personal inner nasty, green bilious (think Billium) poison. You added all kinds of trash to a little bit of good--that isn't meeting the dare. It is an utter fail. Smoke that, Bill.

Where in reformed's original challenge did he include ANY mention of ANY restriction about what respondents could add to their responses to the two requests of that challenge? or ANY suggestion that ANY comments about the president that were NOT positive and affirming of him would render their responses invalid?

You aren't fooling anyone--probably not even yourself.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

I've decided that anyone who can say all those glowing things about President Trump and STILL not care for him, can also feel "deep" respect and appreciation for my response to reformed's challenge... that "didn't meet the challenge at all."

Exactly. Say it some more. Repeat this as often as you will, because I am rather pleased with the ring of it.

I'm glad. See above.

If you don't fully understand it, then you must be either unbelievably lacking in marbles or lying. I lean toward both. Let's watch you thrash about now if that confuses you too.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

You created breaking wind and clouds of smoke by smoking a huge red herring in the middle of what you claim was keeping the dare. You did a little good--congratulations!--you trashed it deliberately with Billium and lost the dare spectacularly.

Where in reformed's original challenge did he include ANY mention of ANY restriction about what respondents could add to their responses to the two requests of that challenge? or ANY suggestion that ANY comments about the president that were NOT positive and affirming of him would render their responses invalid?

We are calling you on it Bill. Over and over. That is dishonest and stinks and is 180 degrees off-topic. Stop trying to defend it. Maybe trolling is what you intend.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@GaoLu said:
1. you are amazingly easy to confuse.
2. You are lying about being confused.

I think both may be entirely true.

I'm glad you do. Unfortunately your analogy is not analogous.

In the case I raised, your statement #1 is "Donald Trump is a great leader, an amazing, God-given president, etc." Your statement #2 is "I don't care for Donald Trump." The question raised by those two statements is "If statement #1 is true, how can statement #2 be true?" (or reverse the numbers; it doesn't matter) - "If you believe Donald Trump is all those things, how can it be that you don't care for him?"

That question makes sense because to a reasonable observer, the two statements to which it refers almost necessarily affect each other. A reasonable observer would conclude that a person's assessment of Trump's performance as president would certainly influence, perhaps even decide, the level of his or her care for Trump.

Now look at the analogy you offer, and create the same question. Substituting as appropriate, the question becomes, "If you are amazingly easy to confuse, how can it be that you are lying about being confused?" Or, for a more blatant example of the same truth, reverse the order of the statements to produce this question: "If you are lying about being confused, how can it be that you amazingly easy to confuse?" A reasonable observer would NOT conclude there is any necessary relation between the ease with which one can be confused and his or her lying about such confusion. Those two conditions do not necessarily affect each other, certainly not in the way the conditions of my two statements do.

Near the end of his life, advancing dementia made my dad very easy to confuse. Never did it cross our minds that the ease with which he was confused had anything to do with whether he was lying to us when, repeatedly, he told us he wasn't confused.

Your analogy's statements have nothing close to the influence on each other that the statements of my argument have on each other, which means your analogy is not analogous.

It's like this:
When my daughter took up violin as a child, she screeched and howled and made horrible noises. Yet I told her she was doing great! I was sincere. Every day she made progress. One day she played "Boil 'em Cabbage Down," (think Billium) and it actually wasn't half bad!

So, when you say Trump is a "great man," a "great leader," and an "amazing," "God-given president" who's "leading as no man has done since Reagan," you mean "great" and "amazing" and "God-given" in the "screechy," "howling," and "horrible" sense of those words?

Likewise, you made a new start. We wanted to reward you. Oh, you came back in an angry frenzy, snarling like a polecat. That's ok. Still, we want to reward even the tiniest bit of progress.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

But no. you utterly failed the dare. You did a teensy bit of good and then smeared all over it with your personal inner nasty, green bilious (think Billium) poison. You added all kinds of trash to a little bit of good--that isn't meeting the dare. It is an utter fail. Smoke that, Bill.

Where in reformed's original challenge did he include ANY mention of ANY restriction about what respondents could add to their responses to the two requests of that challenge? or ANY suggestion that ANY comments about the president that were NOT positive and affirming of him would render their responses invalid?

You aren't fooling anyone--probably not even yourself.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

I've decided that anyone who can say all those glowing things about President Trump and STILL not care for him, can also feel "deep" respect and appreciation for my response to reformed's challenge... that "didn't meet the challenge at all."

Exactly. Say it some more. Repeat this as often as you will, because I am rather pleased with the ring of it.

I'm glad. See above.

If you don't fully understand it, then you must be either unbelievably lacking in marbles or lying. I lean toward both. Let's watch you thrash about now if that confuses you too.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

You created breaking wind and clouds of smoke by smoking a huge red herring in the middle of what you claim was keeping the dare. You did a little good--congratulations!--you trashed it deliberately with Billium and lost the dare spectacularly.

Where in reformed's original challenge did he include ANY mention of ANY restriction about what respondents could add to their responses to the two requests of that challenge? or ANY suggestion that ANY comments about the president that were NOT positive and affirming of him would render their responses invalid?

We are calling you on it Bill. Over and over. That is dishonest and stinks and is 180 degrees off-topic. Stop trying to defend it. Maybe trolling is what you intend.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

GaoLu

@reformed said:

@Bill_Coley said:

Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

We would think so.

@Bill_Coley
You are losing your edge Bill. Caving in slowly. Stuttering replies. Serving up NothingHappyMeals. Maybe you are aging out on this political-hysteria thing.

Stange thing is that Whites are leaving the Dem shipwreck. The Party's hope for survival was remaining Asians, Blacks and Hispanics. Thus the Party needed every immigrant, legal or not and every Hispanic, legal or not. Just get them here. Now Hispanics are leaving the Party as well. The Immigration issue offers a flicker of diminishing hope.

So it is.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:
Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

That's the problem, reformed! I'm not a "rationale" person!

And now you say that going forward, when we respond to your posts, we must not only respond to their overt, explicit content, but we must also conform our replies to the "restrictions" "implied" therein.

Well fine, then. Any rationale person would know that in my post to which this is your reply, I implied that you couldn't bring up the implied restrictions in your posts!! So there!

---

p.s. And before you reply to THIS post, reformed, make sure you review ALL the restrictions implied herein, ESPECIALLY the one about my new zero tolerance policy on references to guacamole.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:

@reformed said:
Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

We would think so.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

You are losing your edge Bill. Caving in slowly. Stuttering replies. Serving up NothingHappyMeals. Maybe you are aging out on this political-hysteria thing.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

Stange thing is that Whites are leaving the Dem shipwreck. The Party's hope for survival was remaining Asians, Blacks and Hispanics. Thus the Party needed every immigrant, legal or not and every Hispanic, legal or not. Just get them here. Now Hispanics are leaving the Party as well. The Immigration issue offers a flicker of diminishing hope.

In the Ohio 12 election you see a Republican win by less than one point a seat that in 2016 the Republican won by 37 points - a 36 point drop in the GOP's winning margin in a district the GOP has lost in nearly 40 years. You see Democrats over-performing against the partisan divide among their constituents in special elections across the country. Democratic turnout in primaries this year is up 84%, compared to a 24% increase in GOP primary turnout.

Straight-up question: Given that state of play on the ground and around the nation, which party's Congressional Campaign Committee would you rather chair if your sole objective is feeling content and happy about the results on November 7?

GaoLu

You are stuttering Bill.

Yeah, it's a different election. Still you lost and keep losing. Ha!

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
Yeah, it's a different election. Still you lost and keep losing. Ha!

As I typed the words "Straight-up Question" to lead the last paragraph of my previous post, I said to myself, Gao Lu won't answer this, so why ask it? Lesson learned.

GaoLu

Oops. Missed it. I would not chair any campaign. I belong to no Party and am frankly bored out of my skull by useless politics. The Bible is clear how God handles politics. We have our part too, of course, but not the fear and anger that permeates some people here.

My happiness and contentment have nothing, I mean 0%, to do with Nov 7 and what happens there. Furthermore, that is not my sole objective, so I can't relate to such a way of thinking.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:
Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

That's the problem, reformed! I'm not a "rationale" person!

We know. Glad you do too.

And now you say that going forward, when we respond to your posts, we must not only respond to their overt, explicit content, but we must also conform our replies to the "restrictions" "implied" therein.

A monkey could have caught that implication. Not sure why you couldn't.

Well fine, then. Any rationale person would know that in my post to which this is your reply, I implied that you couldn't bring up the implied restrictions in your posts!! So there!

This is my thread.

---

p.s. And before you reply to THIS post, reformed, make sure you review ALL the restrictions implied herein, ESPECIALLY the one about my new zero tolerance policy on references to guacamole.

Right, because that is equivalent here.

@Bill_Coley said:

@GaoLu said:

@reformed said:
Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

We would think so.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

You are losing your edge Bill. Caving in slowly. Stuttering replies. Serving up NothingHappyMeals. Maybe you are aging out on this political-hysteria thing.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

Stange thing is that Whites are leaving the Dem shipwreck. The Party's hope for survival was remaining Asians, Blacks and Hispanics. Thus the Party needed every immigrant, legal or not and every Hispanic, legal or not. Just get them here. Now Hispanics are leaving the Party as well. The Immigration issue offers a flicker of diminishing hope.

In the Ohio 12 election you see a Republican win by less than one point a seat that in 2016 the Republican won by 37 points - a 36 point drop in the GOP's winning margin in a district the GOP has lost in nearly 40 years. You see Democrats over-performing against the partisan divide among their constituents in special elections across the country. Democratic turnout in primaries this year is up 84%, compared to a 24% increase in GOP primary turnout.

Straight-up question: Given that state of play on the ground and around the nation, which party's Congressional Campaign Committee would you rather chair if your sole objective is feeling content and happy about the results on November 7?

Still Republicans. It was a special election in the middle of Summer. Nothing to see here.

@GaoLu said:
You are stuttering Bill.

Yeah, it's a different election. Still you lost and keep losing. Ha!

Grasping for straws aren't they?

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:
Any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied.

That's the problem, reformed! I'm not a "rationale" person!

We know. Glad you do too.

You DO know that that there is no such thing as a "rationale" person, don't you? (unless you Trumpsters have your own English language in addition to your own truth)

A monkey could have caught that implication. Not sure why you couldn't.

I guess that means I'm not a monkey.

Well fine, then. Any rationale person would know that in my post to which this is your reply, I implied that you couldn't bring up the implied restrictions in your posts!! So there!

This is my thread.

So it's only an OP's implied restrictions that must be discerned and obeyed in threads. Now THAT'S a policy that makes sense!! Perhaps Jan will add it to the CD FAQs.

p.s. And before you reply to THIS post, reformed, make sure you review ALL the restrictions implied herein, ESPECIALLY the one about my new zero tolerance policy on references to guacamole.

Right, because that is equivalent here.

I apologize. I didn't know that only the implied restrictions of thread creators had the authority to govern posts.

Straight-up question: Given that state of play on the ground and around the nation, which party's Congressional Campaign Committee would you rather chair if your sole objective is feeling content and happy about the results on November 7?

Still Republicans. It was a special election in the middle of Summer. Nothing to see here.

As you know, reformed, Tuesday's was NOT the first or only special congressional election this year. The first ones occurred, not "in the middle of summer," but in March and April. Those two elections produced 22 and 20 point swings against the "partisan lean" respectively, both in favor of the Democrats.

In fact, since the 2016 general election, there have been 11 such special elections. EVERY ONE of them produced a net Democratic swing - an average of 15 points per election - and seven of the eleven were not in summer at all.

That said, loyalty and perspective such as yours will add to the net number of seats we Democrats take in November. So please carry on.

GaoLu

Completely different elections. Y'all lost Bill. Big time. Get over it already.

GaoLu

1. Trump's approval ratings is within the margin of error of Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Ford

2. Trump has a plurality of support in swing counties - looking great for GOP 2018 wins

3. The allegedly (by haters) "racist" Trump has produced an environment in which the African American business are increasing dramatically

Thank You, Mr. President Trump. Yet the glory all goes to God for this day of grace and blessing. May we respond with Thanksgiving.

May those bound and blinded by hatred find healing, freedom and joy.