Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Kaitlyn S]

Do you, before jumping in to attack Richard and me, actually read the series of posts that includes the posts giving rise to the accusations of racism?

 

Let's look at the meme that really showed her true attitude towards blacks. She said, admitting that this was completely without evidence, that reasonable business owners would be unlikely to hire blacks because, if fired, blacks are prone to bringing false discrimination claims.

 

In doing so, she seems to have singled out blacks as a group likely to bring fraudulent lawsuits. They are, it seems, more likely to do this than any other group. Women. Gays. Latinos. Trans. Disabled.Asians. First Nations.

 

No, it is all the blacks...and that is just common sense...it isn't the least racist to make up this notion, and, she said, it is unfair and unrealistic to ask for evidence because stuff like this can't ever be proven...but it is of course absolutely true!

Mike, we have already been down this road before. But since you didn't get the memo, let me repeat.

 

Because the initial comment that started the post (by someone else) was about blacks being not called back for a job. If it was about gays not being called back, this entire discussion would have been about gay anti-discrimination lawsuits and you would be calling me homophobic, and wondering why I hate gays and not mentioning blacks. I don't hate any of them. I am strictly talking about a business's bottom line.

 

Is it a cruel and heartless fact I am pointing out? Yes, of course. I think it's absolutely deplorable that we need anti-discrimination laws. But apparently we do need them.

This was in response to another poster bringing up exactly the same point you are bringing up here.

 

This is kind of funny. For I have active on another forum for quite a while. It has a lot more conservative posters who are routinely labelled as bigots and racists. If you asked the liberals on that group who I was bigoted against, you would get the same answer from every single one of them, and it would not be blacks. So if my alleged bias against blacks is so obvious, they must have all missed it. But maybe they aren't that smart; it's only a forum for people that play high-strategy boardgames.

[diana_eva]

Apologies to diana for taking a quote out of context.

 

 

 

You need to call them "undocumented immigrants". Otherwise some gullible souls will think you're saying she's having group sex with extraterrestrial beings.

 

Are you denying that she was involved with extraterrestrials? Geez there are even videos to prove it. Don't know about immigrants but of course any reasonable being can assume it can be true, why not.

[Winstonm]

I see nothing about faith alone or ultimate knowledge in the first post. From what your post alone, one would assume that mikeh was running a scam.

 

No, only if you take into account your own emotional response to MikeH would you think his posts fit my description. Let me clear this up. This is a scam: "I am the way, the truth, and the light." This is not a scam: "Objective evidence leads me to believe such and such..."

[Kaitlyn S]

I see Kaitlyn as in need of guidance and yes I fully realize this is more than a bit condescending.

 

Kaitlyn I was thinking of you as I read a long story in the Post today about the lead up to the Ping Pong Comet stuff. As I read about all of the people that have been affected by this, and I read about the businesses, I realized that the guy dating my granddaughter is employed by one of these shops. Not Comet. I really like the guy, and so this adds a little directness to how I see this.

 

But the point I want to make is that it doesn't matter if some of these goofballs really believe the crap that they are tweeting and acting on. They are doing an immense amount of harm regardless of why they are doing it. I quote just one of the expressions of frustration by the shop owners:

 

 

Here is the link. I hope you will read it, preferable all of it.

 

https://www.washingt...m=.e3e7bebf2f72

Interesting story. However, it is not going to have the effect that I am going to believe any left leaning story and assume any right-leaning story is bull manure that has spread like wildfire.

 

I had seen this propagation of false stories by foreign entities before.

 

However, no matter how ridiculous the story, as long as it's not physically possible, one has to give it some probability of being true.

 

For example, when I first got an email about Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his wiener, I thought it was probably a hoax, but kept an open mind, realizing that there was some small chance that it was true.

 

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

The right says, and shows with the O'Keefe video, that Democratic operatives were planning people voting out of state. The left says it was all taken out of context. Did it happen? Again, there is some chance it happened. Not 100%. Again, we will never know unless somebody admits to it, and even then, the person who admits to it may be being blackmailed so I guess we will never know. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

WMD in Iraq? Many think they moved them to another country before the searches. Again, not 0%, not 100%. We'll only know if a reliable source admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

I probably related the story before of a friend getting emailed a news story about Obama signing an executive order on Friday afternoon banning the pledge of allegiance from any building receiving federal funding (including public schools.) At the time, it was possible, not 0%, not 100%. My friends all got in a tizzy and were yelling "This traitor must be stopped!" I innocently asked, "Can we verify that this is true?" About 90 seconds of research showed it to be a hoax and we all had a good laugh.

 

However, just like the Weiner story, any story could potentially be true until it's shown not to be. In the past year, I've developed a greater appreciation for the fact that many of these made-up stories go viral and there are people who benefit from the story who might help the spread of it. Maybe that's why I asked if the Pledge of Allegiance "newsflash" might be a hoax - I've seen it too many times.

[Kaitlyn S]

Are you denying that she was involved with extraterrestrials? Geez there are even videos to prove it. Don't know about immigrants but of course any reasonable being can assume it can be true, why not.

In my prior post I said that one can never assume that anything has an absolutely zero chance unless explicitly disproven. However in this case, the probability is so close to zero that I can choose to ignore it with a clear conscience.

[Kaitlyn S]

No, only if you take into account your own emotional response to MikeH would you think his posts fit my description. Let me clear this up. This is a scam: "I am the way, the truth, and the light." This is not a scam: "Objective evidence leads me to believe such and such..."

That's what you meant, but that's not what you said. I saw an opportunity to interject some humor into the discussion by taking what you said and showing that it could imply that mikeh was pulling a scam (a clearly ridiculous assumption, so I thought the humor would be obvious to all.)

 

Like I said, nobody got it. Which means that you all thought I was dead serious. The fact that this is how you all view me is truly sad.

[helene_t]

I am confused. I did actually get an ad for gay sex when I watched the video so maybe there is a connection, but the video itself seems to be about purely platonic relation with extrateristridials. So I don't know where the group sex theory is coming from. Possibly it is a hoax.

[diana_eva]

Interesting story. However, it is not going to have the effect that I am going to believe any left leaning story and assume any right-leaning story is bull manure that has spread like wildfire.

 

I had seen this propagation of false stories by foreign entities before.

 

However, no matter how ridiculous the story, as long as it's not physically possible, one has to give it some probability of being true.

 

For example, when I first got an email about Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his wiener, I thought it was probably a hoax, but kept an open mind, realizing that there was some small chance that it was true.

 

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

The right says, and shows with the O'Keefe video, that Democratic operatives were planning people voting out of state. The left says it was all taken out of context. Did it happen? Again, there is some chance it happened. Not 100%. Again, we will never know unless somebody admits to it, and even then, the person who admits to it may be being blackmailed so I guess we will never know. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

WMD in Iraq? Many think they moved them to another country before the searches. Again, not 0%, not 100%. We'll only know if a reliable source admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

I probably related the story before of a friend getting emailed a news story about Obama signing an executive order on Friday afternoon banning the pledge of allegiance from any building receiving federal funding (including public schools.) At the time, it was possible, not 0%, not 100%. My friends all got in a tizzy and were yelling "This traitor must be stopped!" I innocently asked, "Can we verify that this is true?" About 90 seconds of research showed it to be a hoax and we all had a good laugh.

 

However, just like the Weiner story, any story could potentially be true until it's shown not to be. In the past year, I've developed a greater appreciation for the fact that many of these made-up stories go viral and there are people who benefit from the story who might help the spread of it. Maybe that's why I asked if the Pledge of Allegiance "newsflash" might be a hoax - I've seen it too many times.

 

This is not about left vs right. It's about how believing stuff without caring to check whether it's true or not hurts real people. Or, to put it in your terms of reason, about how assuming everything is potentially true and even if proven not to be true there is always a reasonable chance that the truth is covered up by evil forces of the universe. Hence in the name of good and justice we'd better get our guns and get some justice done.

[nige1]

Nige, hand on heart, do you believe that none of the views posted by Kaitlyn in this thread have been racist? Regardless of this specific case, if someone were to post racist views on BBF do you find it strange to point this out to them, particularly if you suspect that that racism is unintentional and there is therefore a benefit to doing so?

I thought I'd answered you earlier, Zelandakh. In case I didn't, I'll restate my position.

 

I don't read all posts. Please supply an example. There may be subtle inferences in a post, of which the author is unaware. Hence even when we can discern a racist interpretation, the author might be making a different point entirely.

 

As Zelandkh implies, I agree that there's a distinction between being a racist and making a racist post. I can't read minds but, like Zelandakh, I doubt that Kaitlyn is a racist.

 

Anyway, if you regularly criticise ad hominem attacks, you'd be a hypocrite to indulge in them yourself.

 

The philosophy, intentions and motives of some posters might seem frightening. When we're sufficiently concerned about posts embarrassing their authors, however, we can send them a private message, rather than pillory them in the forum. I'm grateful to members who have messaged me about solecisms of mine.

 

Again I suggest that we dispute facts and refute arguments rather than criticise individuals.

[Kaitlyn S]

I can't read minds but I doubt that Kaitlyn is a racist.

By their definition I probably am a racist. I believe that Asian parents tend to instill a better work ethic in their children, on average, than white American parents. Because this is an observation based totally on race, a point can be made that I do see the races differently, and am a racist by some definitions.

 

However, I don't feel I'm doing anything evil by making that observation, and if I am a racist for doing so, then a racist by those people's definition should not be a derogatory term, even though they mean it as such. In fact, on several occasions, I have explained this to my detractors that as long as they use the term racist as they are, I will not consider it a derogatory term, but just a term to describe someone who makes observations that seem quite likely but the PC police and social justice warriors think you should ignore.

[Winstonm]

Interesting story. However, it is not going to have the effect that I am going to believe any left leaning story and assume any right-leaning story is bull manure that has spread like wildfire.

 

I had seen this propagation of false stories by foreign entities before.

 

However, no matter how ridiculous the story, as long as it's not physically possible, one has to give it some probability of being true.

 

For example, when I first got an email about Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his wiener, I thought it was probably a hoax, but kept an open mind, realizing that there was some small chance that it was true.

 

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

The right says, and shows with the O'Keefe video, that Democratic operatives were planning people voting out of state. The left says it was all taken out of context. Did it happen? Again, there is some chance it happened. Not 100%. Again, we will never know unless somebody admits to it, and even then, the person who admits to it may be being blackmailed so I guess we will never know. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

WMD in Iraq? Many think they moved them to another country before the searches. Again, not 0%, not 100%. We'll only know if a reliable source admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

I probably related the story before of a friend getting emailed a news story about Obama signing an executive order on Friday afternoon banning the pledge of allegiance from any building receiving federal funding (including public schools.) At the time, it was possible, not 0%, not 100%. My friends all got in a tizzy and were yelling "This traitor must be stopped!" I innocently asked, "Can we verify that this is true?" About 90 seconds of research showed it to be a hoax and we all had a good laugh.

 

However, just like the Weiner story, any story could potentially be true until it's shown not to be. In the past year, I've developed a greater appreciation for the fact that many of these made-up stories go viral and there are people who benefit from the story who might help the spread of it. Maybe that's why I asked if the Pledge of Allegiance "newsflash" might be a hoax - I've seen it too many times.

 

A different tact. Would you explain a couple of things?

 

I am sure you have heard the saying that "anything is possible". Do you believe that to be true?

 

In an upthread, you mentioned that you believed that George Soros caused the collapse of some country's economy for his own profit. Can you explain why you believe(d) that true?

[PassedOut]

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it.

Not "the left." Trump bragged about it on tape, and a dozen women confirmed that he told the truth about it. Has nothing to do with right vs. left.

[diana_eva]

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

Trump on the Howard Stern show:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/index.html

 

Video of Trump bragging about kissing women and grabbing them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

 

Apology of Trump for video where he brags about inappropriately touching women:

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157844642270725/

 

Is this enough evidence that Trump admits to it? Of course some of the dozens of cases of women who came out to say that Trump really did come into beauty pageants room while they were naked or kissed them without consent or touched them inappropriately might be just lying or looking for 10 minutes of fame.

 

But in the light of Trump's own words which is more likely? He just likes to say that he touches women, but he never does and all those crazy women lie, or he really does what he brags he is doing and getting away with it because he's a star?

[Kaitlyn S]

A different tact. Would you explain a couple of things?

 

I am sure you have heard the saying that "anything is possible". Do you believe that to be true?

 

In an upthread, you mentioned that you believed that George Soros caused the collapse of some country's economy for his own profit. Can you explain why you believe(d) that true?

Sorry - slammed with work but I'll try to give a quick reply.

 

Clearly not anything is possible; for example it's not possible that a person's gender is not affected by which chromosomes he is created with. It's not possible for water to boil at temperatures near absolute zero. It's not possible that the earth is larger than the sun. It's not possible that Donald Trump has never been married.

 

The Malaysian prime minister stated that he thought that Soros ruined their economy. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the appropriate article. While it's possible that he saw something that was inevitable and profited from hastening the process, he did in fact have something to do with Malaysian economic troubles, and to know exactly how much would require me to do a fair amount of research.

 

Diana: I'll look at your articles when I get a chance. Not likely before tomorrow.

[Winstonm]

Sorry - slammed with work but I'll try to give a quick reply.

 

Clearly not anything is possible; for example it's not possible that a person's gender is not affected by which chromosomes he is created with. It's not possible for water to boil at temperatures near absolute zero. It's not possible that the earth is larger than the sun. It's not possible that Donald Trump has never been married.

 

The Malaysian prime minister stated that he thought that Soros ruined their economy. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the appropriate article. While it's possible that he saw something that was inevitable and profited from hastening the process, he did in fact have something to do with Malaysian economic troubles, and to know exactly how much would require me to do a fair amount of research.

 

No, that's fine. Thx.

 

We are in agreement that some things must be either impossible or so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. After that, all else must be a question of degree.

 

Second, have you read or do you know anyone in finance who handles large amounts of dollars or transactions? The issue with the Soros question is not who believes what but whether or not it is even possible for a single trader to affect an economy of a country. I am not in that industry. My reading and study in trying to learn the industry has indicated to me that such a claim is preposterous and should be marked as "ridiculous". Once that is done, the only thing left is to determine why anyone would suggest such as story.

 

The questions we have to ask ourselves going forward, it seems to me, is first, is this even possible, and second, if possible how likely is it to have occurred?

 

Concerning the Pizzagate article that Kenberg linked, the combination of these two questions should make anyone with more than a single brain cell rule out this hoax without hesitation. The only people who could be duped with this story are those with some kind of anti-government, anti-Clinton, anti-liberal, or religious ax to grind and are looking for confirmation of their bias. And what has happened? If you read the entire article, the ones duped were as suggested.

 

When one side is continually duped by implausibilities and impossibilities, is should be a warning to look closer at their claims, don't you think?

[jonottawa]

President Trump named Time Person of the Year

 

Better late than never.

 

 

And Kaitlyn, if you let them frame the argument, you've already lost. But I admire your valiant efforts nevertheless.

 

Whether or not George Soros destabilized some economy somewhere is a red herring. Who cares? He is very wealthy. He spends a crap-ton of money in an effort to influence politics. It makes sense to care about his political beliefs, to be curious about what he spends his political donations on and whether or not a billionaire should be able to exert that much influence in politics without actually running for something. I don't care about the rest.

 

As for pizzagate, another distraction. I care about the 49 gays who were killed in Orlando. I care about the 87 people who were killed in Nice. I care about the hundreds of people who were sexually assaulted in Cologne. I care about the 32 people who were killed (and hundreds injured) in Brussels. I care about the Islamic terrorist attack at Ohio State. All of this stuff gets flushed down the memory hole and we obsess about 1 deranged dude who didn't actually hurt anybody. Because the MSM frames the argument & chooses what's 'important' and what's not. They frame the narrative to brainwash their viewers. And it works.

 

As for whether Trump is a womanizer, yes he was. So what? So was JFK. So was LBJ. Do I think he kissed women on the lips? Yes. I've never in my life said to a woman 'Can I kiss you on the lips?' You lean in and either you kiss her on the lips or she turns her head. I guess that makes me Paul Bernardo. Do I think he walked up to strangers and grabbed their hoohas? Of course not, get serious. Compared to Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner, he's a saint. So we kept 2 perverts out of the White House & we let a former womanizer in. I'm okay with that. This is just another pointless distraction.

 

Anyway, stop letting them frame the argument. If you're always on defense, you'll never put any points on the board.

[hrothgar]

Better late than never.

 

I would have thought that 1938 was good enough

 

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2040427.1418229662!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/controversy11n-2-web.jpg

[kenberg]

Interesting story. However, it is not going to have the effect that I am going to believe any left leaning story and assume any right-leaning story is bull manure that has spread like wildfire.

 

I had seen this propagation of false stories by foreign entities before.

 

However, no matter how ridiculous the story, as long as it's not physically possible, one has to give it some probability of being true.

 

For example, when I first got an email about Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his wiener, I thought it was probably a hoax, but kept an open mind, realizing that there was some small chance that it was true.

 

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

The right says, and shows with the O'Keefe video, that Democratic operatives were planning people voting out of state. The left says it was all taken out of context. Did it happen? Again, there is some chance it happened. Not 100%. Again, we will never know unless somebody admits to it, and even then, the person who admits to it may be being blackmailed so I guess we will never know. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

WMD in Iraq? Many think they moved them to another country before the searches. Again, not 0%, not 100%. We'll only know if a reliable source admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

 

I probably related the story before of a friend getting emailed a news story about Obama signing an executive order on Friday afternoon banning the pledge of allegiance from any building receiving federal funding (including public schools.) At the time, it was possible, not 0%, not 100%. My friends all got in a tizzy and were yelling "This traitor must be stopped!" I innocently asked, "Can we verify that this is true?" About 90 seconds of research showed it to be a hoax and we all had a good laugh.

 

However, just like the Weiner story, any story could potentially be true until it's shown not to be. In the past year, I've developed a greater appreciation for the fact that many of these made-up stories go viral and there are people who benefit from the story who might help the spread of it. Maybe that's why I asked if the Pledge of Allegiance "newsflash" might be a hoax - I've seen it too many times.

 

I feel like a country preacher trying to convert a sinner.

There is a tautological sense to "If it isn't impossible then it must be possible". But sirely you do not lead your everyday life that way.

 

An example:

 

50+ years ago I was a young graduate student. I had a wife, a child and we were living on a graduate assistant's salary, which is to say very little. The local grocery store had a deal: You shop, the give you a card with a letter on it, when you had all the letters to something, probably the name of the store (Red Owl) you got a big prize. Wonderful. I quickly got Re Owl. But no D. Ok, I would check with friends. I had many Ls. Maybe I could trade an L for a D. Surprise!! Everyone else was also waiting for a D!. All these years later I still look back in amusement at my naivety. Sure, it could have been just luck that nobody had yet gotten a D. And I imagine that there were some Ds out there. Just not many.

 

Surely you look at many things day to day and say "Possible, but not really". Hillary is running a child sex ring? Really? Where is my D? No doubt I will get it in just a couple more trips to the store. Sure.

 

My naivety was pretty much harmless. This sex ring stuff is not. I am asking that before people send off tweets or post stuff on Facebook they use a little judgment. Absolute proof, no. But judgment is a reasonable request.

 

If nothing else, consider the source. This guy who drove up from N.C. has alcohol problems drug problems, can't keep a job, etc. This is no surprise. What he can do is drive up to D.C with an assault rifle and start shooting. Sure, he is just concerned about the children in Hillary's sex ring. Sure.

[mikeh]

 

 

The Malaysian prime minister stated that he thought that Soros ruined their economy. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the appropriate article. While it's possible that he saw something that was inevitable and profited from hastening the process, he did in fact have something to do with Malaysian economic troubles, and to know exactly how much would require me to do a fair amount of research.

 

 

 

Did it ever occur to you, with the British pound and the Malaysian economy, that politicians rarely announce to the world: 'sorry, we made a mess of things...blame us'

 

I don't know anything about the Malaysian situation but I know something about, and have posted about, the UK situation. Soros saw a disaster in the making. The UK was wasting billions of its dwindling foreign reserves trying to keep the Pound within the prescribed exchange rate with the Mark. It was hanging on by the skin of its teeth, and the economic situation was such that an informed outsider, such as Soros, could anticipate that the UK was going to be unable to stay in the ERM for much longer. If and when it exited, the pound woukd sink against the Mark (and I assume against most other currencies). So shorting the pound was a good bet.

 

As it happened, shorting the pound added to the pressure on the UK to exit. It was forcd to dramatically increase interest rates and accelerate its wastage of foreign currency reserves.

 

Logic suggests that if Soros' position was flawed...if the ERM was sustainable...his efforts to short the pound would have been of limited success. But he simply exposed and emphasized what was already underway. It seems pretty clear that the UK was going to leave the ERM within a few months, or a year at the outside. He triggered an earlier exit and, in so doing, made his legendary billion.

 

It is possible to argue that he was in fact 'the cause' of the exit from the ERM as of the day it happened, but it is silly to argue that the UK would have remained in the ERM absent his intervention, and in the meantime would have thrown ever increasing amounts of good money after bad.

 

The politicians of course, or at least those in power, were adamant that Soros was 'the villain', because to admit otherwise woul dhave been to admit that they had made a stupid decision to commit to the ERM, a stupid decision to agree to the ERM with no avenue to renegotiate or to exit gracefully, and had ruled over a failing economy that couldn't keep up with Germany.

 

I sort of suspect that the Malaysian government wasn't the best economic administration of all time. Scapegoating, especially scapegoating foreigners, is a hallowed tradition amongst all incompetent rulers.

 

Did Soros wreck the Malaysian economy? Maybe. I have no opinion based on fact. But I sure wouldn't take a quote from a Malaysian politician as evidence.

[nige1]

Do you, before jumping in to attack Richard and me, actually read the series of posts that includes the posts giving rise to the accusations of racism?

I don't read all posts but I attack some ad hominem "arguments".

 

Let's look at the meme that really showed her true attitude towards blacks....

We aren't mind-readers. Why must we speculate about Kaitlyn's attitudes? Why can't we just discuss facts and arguments relevant to the topic?

[mikeh]

I don't read all posts but I attack some ad hominem "arguments".

 

 

We aren't mind-readers. Why must we speculate about Kaitlyn's attitudes? Why can't we just discuss facts and arguments relevant the topic?

 

 

wtf?

 

You haven't bothered to read what Kaitlyn wrote? The posts that caused me and others here to tell her that she was expressing racist views?

 

Yet, without taking that somewhat basic step, you feel able to sit at your computer and write attack after attack on me....on my character?

 

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks? I'm not sure that you know what that actually means, altho I am sure you can quote a dictionary definition.

 

You know, I gained a useful insight into your character in your response to my pointing out that an argument you had made, based on the notion that the genius, Newton, believed in what we all now know to be silly...alchemy. I pointed out that in the context of his times, a belief in alchemy as a topic worth pursuing was eminently reasonable and that it is an error to judge historical figures in the light of current knowledge.

 

Your response was that you would prefer I not expose your ignorance and that it was patronizing of me to do so...notwithstanding that you were the one advancing the fallacious argument in an effort to make me look unfair.

 

You have now further clarified your character. You are happy to write long paragraphs attacking me for comments I made in response to specific posts, yet you can't be bothered to see whether my comments were reasonable? You simply assume that they couldn't be.

 

You suggested that I use personal attacks on witnesses in trials. You presumably don't have any knowledge of what I do for a living. No lawyer should engage in personal attacks on a witness in a courtroom. Such would usually be counterproductive and would always be, imo, unprofessional.

 

Trust me: it is rarely difficult to make an idiot look like an idiot, without calling the person an idiot to their face. You merely point out what they have admitted to doing or thinking or writing, and the conclusion follows as the day follows the night.

[diana_eva]

This is an interesting exercise for you Kaitlyn. Let's say you read my post:

 

Trump on the Howard Stern show:

http://edition.cnn.c...tern/index.html

 

Video of Trump bragging about kissing women and grabbing them:

https://www.washingt...eed4_story.html

 

Apology of Trump for video where he brags about inappropriately touching women:

https://www.facebook...57844642270725/

 

Is this enough evidence that Trump admits to it? Of course some of the dozens of cases of women who came out to say that Trump really did come into beauty pageants room while they were naked or kissed them without consent or touched them inappropriately might be just lying or looking for 10 minutes of fame.

 

But in the light of Trump's own words which is more likely? He just likes to say that he touches women, but he never does and all those crazy women lie, or he really does what he brags he is doing and getting away with it because he's a star?

 

Let's say you google for yourself and try to find some additional information, for example wikipedia shows a list of women who accused Trump and what they say he did, with no political commentary:

https://en.wikipedia...uct_allegations

 

Let's say you also read Jon's post:

 

---

 

And Kaitlyn, if you let them frame the argument, you've already lost. But I admire your valiant efforts nevertheless.

...

 

As for whether Trump is a womanizer, yes he was. So what? So was JFK. So was LBJ. Do I think he kissed women on the lips? Yes. I've never in my life said to a woman 'Can I kiss you on the lips?' You lean in and either you kiss her on the lips or she turns her head. I guess that makes me Paul Bernardo. Do I think he walked up to strangers and grabbed their hoohas? Of course not, get serious. Compared to Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner, he's a saint. So we kept 2 perverts out of the White House & we let a former womanizer in. I'm okay with that. This is just another pointless distraction.

 

Anyway, stop letting them frame the argument. If you're always on defense, you'll never put any points on the board.

 

Draw your own conclusions. You don't have to post them here, I personally don't care to go after your choice of words or debunk your arguments at any cost. I am not a liberal, not a democrat, I'm just a woman from an ex-communist country who has seen a lot of propaganda.

 

I'd really like you to think for yourself, instead of relying on what other people say. You have facts (hope you agree radio show recordings + videos + apology straight on Trump's official page count as facts), you have opinion (Jon's interpretation of these facts) and you have your own brain.

[cherdano]

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

LOL. Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Some women came forward and described in detail how he sexually assaulted them.

It's a "she said-he said". As in, she said so, and he said so also.

[cherdano]

Doublepost.

[diana_eva]

LOL. Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Some women came forward and described in detail how he sexually assaulted them.

It's a "she said-he said". As in, she said so, and he said so also.

 

Apparently this is just a matter of opinion, we can't be sure (says Kaitlyn), and after all how can we believe he would go touch a woman without consent, be serious (says Jon)!