Trump Presidency

[GoldenAura]

Cack, let it go. You drove yourself nuts to the point of having to leave IE for awhile over the Trump nonsense. You got fooled into believing something and kept hanging onto it LONG after everyone else knew it was false, and drove yourself and the rest of us bonkers with all the nonsensial rants about it. Trump is out of office. He's gone. Let him go. Stop letting everything about him get under your skin. That you're still posting years-old speeches about him to make some phony point is not good.

"I have no real argument but just know you're wrong"

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Lmaoooo this fucking guy

Bruh tells me to let it go but 100% comes to his defense anytime I say anything about him. It. It’s clockwork. Loses the argument then goes back 4 years ago to attack me about other stuff. 😂

FYR I left because of several personal issues that have zero to do with the board or my activities on it. That is 100% Incorrect on your part. Id appreciate if you would desist repeating that.

 

[IrishBoognish]

Ya cack...


The Ukraine impeachment was totes nonsense and fake.

You should be embarrassed.



(and lol at the idea of "Hes out of office, let it go" bullshit)

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bruh tells me to let it go but 100% comes to his defense anytime I say anything about him. It. It’s clockwork. Loses the argument then goes back 4 years ago to attack me about other stuff. 😂

Jesus, Cack. Do you really not get it? I specifically said I wasn't defending Trump. I was defending intellectual honesty when arguing a point. The bleach thing was just the example given of you and others intentionally and knowingly misrepresenting facts. You're butthurt right now because I called you out for consistently making stuff up, misrepresenting what others say, misrepresenting what facts indicate, drawing conclusions that fit your views but not the evidence, and letting your views determine the evidence instead of the other way around. Let it go. Let Trump go and stop obsessing about him. Argue honestly, be honest in your representation of facts, and be honest in what you say about others' views. That's all.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

SMH. Legit go bruh. Take the L

I legit couldnt care less about your opinion on if he said injecting disinfectant and if you think because the opposition weaponized it to bleach because it’s easier to sloganize and whether you acknowledge how dumb you look now. You are being dishonest intellectually as well fighting to the death over the semantics between bleach and disinfectant. Lol. I do get it. “Dear leader is under threat by Cacks superior intellect and I must defend him at all costs! We cannot allow him to be besmirched in any way and on any platform!” Lol

PS the following post was written by a dumb person who can’t spell.

 

[IrishBoognish]

Our bravely independent friend wants you to know he is TOTALLY not defending Trump. He's merely objecting to ***checks notes*** quoting him when it looks bad.

(bishop, he did say inject disinfectant and he did say bleach was a good one... you can accept this and maybe learn from it)

 

[GoldenAura]

Jesus, Cack. Do you really not get it? I specifically said I wasn't defending Trump. I was defending intellectual honesty when arguing a point. The bleach thing was just the example given of you and others intentionally and knowingly misrepresenting facts. You're butthurt right now because I called you out for consistently making stuff up, misrepresenting what others say, misrepresenting what facts indicate, drawing conclusions that fit your views but not the evidence, and letting your views determine the evidence instead of the other way around. Let it go. Let Trump go and stop obsessing about him. Argue honestly, be honest in your representation of facts, and be honest in what you say about others' views. That's all.

Please tell us how it's being misrepresented in any way.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Please tell us how it's being misrepresented in any way.

If you accept the premise that the word bleach want actually used then that’s his whole point. It falls apart completely in when intellectually honest people accept that bleach, mentioned earlier in the presser as an effective disinfectant by Trump, is used in context for the following part of the presser where he said injecting disinfectants. The problem is that YOU DONT INJECT DISINFECTANTS TO TREAT DISEASES. Not only was this a huge medical error but it was a huge fuck up on creditibility. So much that his own WH staff were embarrassed. But I’m being biased. Whatever.

It’s an example of how colossally the dude was out of his depth.

 

[IrishBoognish]

I cant imagine the effort and weirdness required to always defend this lunatic.

"He didn't *actually* mean the Nazis when he said 'fine people on both sides'... he meant... you know... both the *other sides*!!!"

"He didn't *actually* ask for a quid pro quo from Zelensky... It really was a perfect call!!"

"He didn't *actually* say inject bleach... merely disinfectant!!"




The gaslighting sincerely melted some peoples minds. It would be funny if it didn't have a large part in landing us where we're at.

 

[GoldenAura]

If you accept the premise that the word bleach want actually used then that’s his whole point. It falls apart completely in when intellectually honest people accept that bleach, mentioned earlier in the presser as an effective disinfectant by Trump, is used in context for the following part of the presser where he said injecting disinfectants. The problem is that YOU DONT INJECT DISINFECTANTS TO TREAT DISEASES. Not only was this a huge medical error but it was a huge fuck up on creditibility. So much that his own WH staff were embarrassed. But I’m being biased. Whatever.

It’s an example of how colossally the dude was out of his depth.

Oh I know, I just want to see what he comes up with next lol

 

[TorontoGold]

Bishop, there's literally nothing intellectually dishonest about what any of us have said. You know, I know, everyone knows. Posts have been sourced with quotes and articles to further a point. I haven't seen any on your end, that is not a good sign for "intellectual honesty".

Just accept it, and move on. It was a clossally embarrassing day for presidency that day and many other days from that person. No need to defend it, there are times when we must accept it.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bishop, there's literally nothing intellectually dishonest about what any of us have said. You know, I know, everyone knows. Posts have been sourced with quotes and articles to further a point. I haven't seen any on your end, that is not a good sign for "intellectual honesty".

Just accept it, and move on. It was a clossally embarrassing day for presidency that day and many other days from that person. No need to defend it, there are times when we must accept it.

I believe you're missing the point. I wasn't trying to defend Trump or argue about bleach. That was simply the example used since someone else brought it up. I didn't vote for Trump nor do I feel a need to defend him. I was criticizing the misrepresentation of what he said. Every single one of us in here know he didn't say people should inject bleach. He asked if some sort of disinfectant could be used and those wanting to score cheap points changed that to bleach. They could have said he suggested injecting disinfectants, but that wouldn't have the same "Oh my God, can you believe he said that?" punch as claiming he said bleach. I simply pointed out that such intentional dishonesty is uncalled for and unacceptable, shows an inability to make your point honestly and factually, and that one of our posters is quite prone to doing such on a regular basis.

 

[IrishBoognish]

I believe you're missing the point. I wasn't trying to defend Trump or argue about bleach. That was simply the example used since someone else brought it up. I didn't vote for Trump nor do I feel a need to defend him. I was criticizing the misrepresentation of what he said. Every single one of us in here know he didn't say people should inject bleach. He asked if some sort of disinfectant could be used and those wanting to score cheap points changed that to bleach. They could have said he suggested injecting disinfectants, but that wouldn't have the same "Oh my God, can you believe he said that?" punch as claiming he said bleach. I simply pointed out that such intentional dishonesty is uncalled for and unacceptable, shows an inability to make your point honestly and factually, and that one of our posters is quite prone to doing such on a regular basis.

Atta boy...

Post through it. Keep sluggin'

 

[GoldenAura]

I believe you're missing the point. I wasn't trying to defend Trump or argue about bleach. That was simply the example used since someone else brought it up. I didn't vote for Trump nor do I feel a need to defend him. I was criticizing the misrepresentation of what he said. Every single one of us in here know he didn't say people should inject bleach. He asked if some sort of disinfectant could be used and those wanting to score cheap points changed that to bleach. They could have said he suggested injecting disinfectants, but that wouldn't have the same "Oh my God, can you believe he said that?" punch as claiming he said bleach. I simply pointed out that such intentional dishonesty is uncalled for and unacceptable, shows an inability to make your point honestly and factually, and that one of our posters is quite prone to doing such on a regular basis.

 

[Bishop2b5]

SMH. Legit go bruh. Take the L

I legit couldnt care less about your opinion on if he said injecting disinfectant and if you think because the opposition weaponized it to bleach because it’s easier to sloganize and whether you acknowledge how dumb you look now. You are being dishonest intellectually as well fighting to the death over the semantics between bleach and disinfectant. Lol. I do get it. “Dear leader is under threat by Cacks superior intellect and I must defend him at all costs! We cannot allow him to be besmirched in any way and on any platform!” Lol

PS the following post was written by a dumb person who can’t spell.

And there's my entire point made for me.

 

[TorontoGold]

I believe you're missing the point. I wasn't trying to defend Trump or argue about bleach. That was simply the example used since someone else brought it up. I didn't vote for Trump nor do I feel a need to defend him. I was criticizing the misrepresentation of what he said. Every single one of us in here know he didn't say people should inject bleach. He asked if some sort of disinfectant could be used and those wanting to score cheap points changed that to bleach. They could have said he suggested injecting disinfectants, but that wouldn't have the same "Oh my God, can you believe he said that?" punch as claiming he said bleach. I simply pointed out that such intentional dishonesty is uncalled for and unacceptable, shows an inability to make your point honestly and factually, and that one of our posters is quite prone to doing such on a regular basis.

No, it's quite clear what the point is. It's "No bleach no problem".

The shtick of pushing back on "intellectual dishonesty" rings hollow. You'll argue semantics routinely on things, but let many on the opposite side go unchallenged and then step in to help them on their misguided points. Playing the referee does not work if you challenge one side on semantics and let the group you agree with run amok with inaccuracies.

Challenge with studies/articles/facts, arguing semantics or with prose does not help your case.

 

[Bishop2b5]

No, it's quite clear what the point is. It's "No bleach no problem".

The shtick of pushing back on "intellectual dishonesty" rings hollow. You'll argue semantics routinely on things, but let many on the opposite side go unchallenged and then step in to help them on their misguided points. Playing the referee does not work if you challenge one side on semantics and let the group you agree with run amok with inaccuracies.

Challenge with studies/articles/facts, arguing semantics or with prose does not help your case.

The entire "rebuttal" from you, Cack, and the others today has been an exercise in reinterpreting what I've said. Don't reinterpret anything I say or explain to me what I actually meant. I'm usually very direct and explicit and clear when I make a point. If you feel a need to reinterpret what I've said, it's because you can't successfully argue against my point otherwise. There are those here who are notorious for doing so on a regular basis and seem unable to argue any point without resorting to such. I'd say that I didn't understand why a few of you routinely do it, but I most certainly DO understand the need.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

• Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
• Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
• Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

 

[IrishBoognish]

lol


let me play!


Gaslighting (verb)

Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality. The term may also be used to describe a person who presents a false narrative to another group or person which leads them to doubt their perceptions and become misled, disoriented or distressed.

 

[Bishop2b5]

lol


let me play!


Gaslighting (verb)

Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality. The term may also be used to describe a person who presents a false narrative to another group or person which leads them to doubt their perceptions and become misled, disoriented or distressed.

You left out using patriarchy, cisgender, white supremacy, imperialism, maginalization, inclusiveness, and non-binary in your use of silly, meaningless words to refute my points.

 

[IrishBoognish]

You left out using patriarchy, cisgender, white supremacy, imperialism, maginalization, inclusiveness, and non-binary in your use of silly, meaningless words to refute my points.

lol... perhaps I should link the definition of non-sequitir

and of course you think those words have no meaning.


Care to wax on about strawmen a little more, or have you moved on from that already?


Keep on swingin' my bravely independent friend. Oh caller of balls and strikes you.

 

[TorontoGold]

The entire "rebuttal" from you, Cack, and the others today has been an exercise in reinterpreting what I've said. Don't reinterpret anything I say or explain to me what I actually meant. I'm usually very direct and explicit and clear when I make a point. If you feel a need to reinterpret what I've said, it's because you can't successfully argue against my point otherwise. There are those here who are notorious for doing so on a regular basis and seem unable to argue any point without resorting to such. I'd say that I didn't understand why a few of you routinely do it, but I most certainly DO understand the need.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

• Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
• Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
• Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

Wait, we're strawman'ing when you're arguing that the key is the vast vast difference between bleach and disinfectant? You can't be serious.

I provided the full quote, there's video proof of what was said. Is the video doctored? Is the quote misquoted?

No one is misrepresenting you, you and many others have ironically taken up a stern defense pact for someone that "you didn't vote for". Which is hilarious and for another day to dive into the need to constantly defend him.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Wait, we're strawman'ing when you're arguing that the key is the vast vast difference between bleach and disinfectant? You can't be serious.

I provided the full quote, there's video proof of what was said. Is the video doctored? Is the quote misquoted?

No one is misrepresenting you, you and many others have ironically taken up a stern defense pact for someone that "you didn't vote for". Which is hilarious and for another day to dive into the need to constantly defend him.

The strawman'ing is the fact that you're still trying to make this about bleach when I've said over and over and over that Trump's comment about disinfectant/bleach was NOT the point and that I was only using it as an example of arguing in bad faith and dishonestly representing the position or opinion of those you disagree with.

 

[IrishBoognish]

The strawman'ing is the fact that you're still trying to make this about bleach when I've said over and over and over that Trump's comment about disinfectant/bleach was NOT the point and that I was only using it as an example of arguing in bad faith and dishonestly representing the position or opinion of those you disagree with.

I gotta hand it to ya, homie.


"My point isn't the thing I said, my point is you called me on it" is some wild shit I don't think I've ever seen before.

Can we start the discussion now about how you didn't vote for Trump? I feel like this is petering out and that might have some legs!

I feel like either its a lie (I hope not) or you voted libertarian (lol)

either way its sure to be a hoot!

 

[Bishop2b5]

lol... perhaps I should link the definition of non-sequitir

and of course you think those words have no meaning.


Care to wax on about strawmen a little more, or have you moved on from that already?


Keep on swingin' my bravely independent friend. Oh caller of balls and strikes you.

First, it's non sequitur and doesn't have a hyphen. If you're going to try and insult me, at least learn to spell the words you use. Second, yes, those words I suggested for you are all silly and have little value or meaning to rational adults. They're made up, meaningless drivel to make helpless neurotic people feel intellectually superior. The rest of us laugh at their use. You do you, though.

 

[IrishBoognish]

First, it's non sequitur and doesn't have a hyphen. If you're going to try and insult me, at least learn to spell the words you use. Second, yes, those words I suggested for you are all silly and have little value or meaning to rational adults. They're made up, meaningless drivel to make helpless neurotic people feel intellectually superior. The rest of us laugh at their use. You do you, though.

 

[TorontoGold]

The strawman'ing is the fact that you're still trying to make this about bleach when I've said over and over and over that Trump's comment about disinfectant/bleach was NOT the point and that I was only using it as an example of arguing in bad faith and dishonestly representing the position or opinion of those you disagree with.

lol wut? There is no strawman'ing, again, you've taken up arms to defend the comment "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning."

Arguing in bad faith and dishonesty is twisting and turning whether someone uses bleach/clorox/Lysol/javex in place of disinfectant.

Whether someone says bleach/clorox/lysol or whatever, it is not material to the quote "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning."

I don't know why you continue to defend someone you never voted for.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

He’s obviously not taking the L. He’ll go on ad absurdum. He’s totally convinced he’s right. Cool. No arguing with that.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

lol... perhaps I should link the definition of non-sequitir

and of course you think those words have no meaning.


Care to wax on about strawmen a little more, or have you moved on from that already?


Keep on swingin' my bravely independent friend. Oh caller of balls and strikes you.

I take bishop about as seriously on this matter as I do Frank Drebbin umpiring the Angels game

 

[Bishop2b5]

He’s obviously not taking the L. He’ll go on ad absurdum. He’s totally convinced he’s right. Cool. No arguing with that.

Cack, with all due respect my friend, in my almost 10 years of being in here, you've never delivered an L to me. I like you. I've always been civil and friendly to you. However, you're the worst poster on IE for intentionally misrepresenting what others say or believe. You're the poster child for strawman arguing. I'm always respectful to you and have no doubt that you mean well, but dial back ascribing thoughts, beliefs, and opinions to others just because it supports your narrative. Don't take the words or actions of a few and insist they apply to the whole group, especially when the rest of the group has made it very clear they don't. Don't misrepresent what others say or believe. Dishonest arguing and intentionally misrepresenting others' views or ideas is never acceptable. You're one of the owners and mods here. Be bigger than doing that and set a better example.