Isn't Trump, the evidence that America can become Tyrannical at any moment?

[Jorge Luis Borges]

YSo here we have a concrete example of you abandoning a principle because of partisanship, right? Up until Trump was elected, you opposed debt increases as a matter of some kind of principle, but once your "team" is in the WH, you suddenly stop caring.

Lol. The obvious point here is that I didn't stop caring; I denounced Trump for deficit spending. (More than once in the War Room I might add). What you are saying is the opposite of truth.

Anyway, more on point, my comment to @waiguoren is well supported by your spurious attacks on me. He mentioned several areas in which he does not support Trump and several where he does. But you mentioned him as a person willing to put aside values for partisanship. You were wrong about him. And now you attack me as abandoning a principle because of partisanship, but I unequivocally denounced Trump (and George W to boot) for deficit spending. That shows I did not abandon my principle, but stuck to it regardless of the party of those responsible for the deficit spending.

So what does this mean in the context of this thread? The OP starts from the premise that his fanbase rationalizes everything he does, but then when two Trump supporters specifically criticize him, you are the one rationalizing that criticism away. You are committed to the position that Trump's supporters have abandoned principles etc, and are forced to ignore evidence that this is simply not so. Confirmation bias is a bitch.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It is, and has always been my view that Jack is arguably amongst the most (if not the singular most) partisan poster on this forum. There are guys more loud and nutty in their partisanship but who do not show the true underlying ideological bent that Jack shows across the board. it would be interesting to see a poll on that in the forums but then people would vote along partisan lines and not respond honestly as this is the War Room.

That would be interesting. I think there are quite a few posters on either side able to at least make an effort to see things from another angle. And if quite a few is too generous, there are at least enough to generate meaningful discussion. It's part of what makes the War Room such a zesty place.

 

[GOATER]

Ok, lay out your argument. Post all the ways that Trump is being tyrannical with evidence of said tyrannical behavior.

Because all you are doing right now is crying like woman on menstruation cycle and while endearing on woman, it is very fecal upon a man...oh, wow don't want to make assumptions, it is very fecal on a man or a boy.



He said he was going to move the embassy to jerusalem and did. At least 3 other presidents said they were going to and have not.
Save your butthurt for people without any real ideas of their own.

LMFAO...Are you serious?...He claims he can pardon himself no matter what



His lawyer said he can shoot comey and not be prosecuted

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/03/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-shoot-comey-impeachment/index.html


and his fanbase has ZERO problems with all of this....ZERO


The point is clear..If he isn't losing any support over these fucked up dictator like comments, which any other politician will get heavily scrutinized over.......Then this clearly shows that Americans don't have a huge problem with dictatorship statements like these, thus we are susceptible for a dicatorship.


So yes, under the right circumstances and with the right narrative, somebody can become a dictator in the USA.......Now will Trump actually do it? Doubt it but I wouldn't be surprised.....But trump has shown that it can be done.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol. The obvious point here is that I didn't stop caring; I denounced Trump for deficit spending. (More than once in the War Room I might add). What you are saying is the opposite of truth.

No, it's true. You didn't denounce Trump for his unusual move of slashing revenue and drastically increasing long-term debt projections. You just said there are are bad people on both sides, many sides. The difference is that an actual denunciation would show special disapproval for his actions.

It's like if someone said to Ted Bundy's friend, "what do you think of him abducting, raping, murdering, and then desecrating the corpses of young women?" and you responded with, "yeah, a lot of people have dark impulses, including Ted" and tried to call that a denunciation of him.

Anyway, more on point, my comment to @waiguoren is well supported by your spurious attacks on me.

Your willingness to abandon your principles to defend Trump shows that the OP is right, though, doesn't it?

But you mentioned him as a person willing to put aside values for partisanship.

Because of his playing dumb about the corruption of the administration and the odd claim that he's delivering on promises.

You were wrong about him. And now you attack me as abandoning a principle because of partisanship, but I unequivocally denounced Trump (and George W to boot) for deficit spending. That shows I did not abandon my principle, but stuck to it regardless of the party of those responsible for the deficit spending.

Wrong. You're claiming to denounce everyone, which means you're denouncing no one. You're not making a distinction between people who actually took effective steps toward moving policy in a direction that you pretend to support and people who are moving it very hard in the opposite direction.

So what does this mean in the context of this thread? The OP starts from the premise that his fanbase rationalizes everything he does, but then when two Trump supporters specifically criticize him, you are the one rationalizing that criticism away. You are committed to the position that Trump's supporters have abandoned principles etc, and are forced to ignore evidence that this is simply not so. Confirmation bias is a bitch.

The OP is 100% correct as it relates to mindless partisans like you who claim to oppose debt increases on principle and then defend it in practice, so long as the people violating your alleged principle are in your tribe.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is, and has always been my view that Jack is arguably amongst the most (if not the singular most) partisan poster on this forum. There are guys more loud and nutty in their partisanship but who do not show the true underlying ideological bent that Jack shows across the board. it would be interesting to see a poll on that in the forums but then people would vote along partisan lines and not respond honestly as this is the War Room.

And another loathsome nutter enters to defend Inga with a ridiculously false allegation.

That would be interesting. I think there are quite a few posters on either side able to at least make an effort to see things from another angle. And if quite a few is too generous, there are at least enough to generate meaningful discussion. It's part of what makes the War Room such a zesty place.

There are few posters here better able to see things from many angles than I am. I am 100% sure I could post what you want to see and be your favorite poster, while I am equally sure that you would not be able to replicate intelligent thought that you disagree with.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No, it's true. You didn't denounce Trump for his unusual move of slashing revenue and drastically increasing long-term debt projections. You just said there are are bad people on both sides, many sides. The difference is that an actual denunciation would show special disapproval for his actions.

Here's what I said:

I'm already on the record for opposing Trump's and the Republican Congress' deficit spending. (I support the tax cut. I don't think the US has a revenue problem. I think we have a spending problem.) That omnibus bill was bad imo. Trump shouldn't have signed it.

No two sides at all there. And it includes specific disapproval for his actions. And yet you have the temerity to call anyone else dishonest? Anyway, I have no intention of spending my afternoon in an interminable Jack Savage flame war. On some topics, you are simply unable to debate in good faith.

 

[MikeMcMann]

LMFAO...Are you serious?...He claims he can pardon himself no matter what



His lawyer said he can shoot comey and not be prosecuted

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/03/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-shoot-comey-impeachment/index.html


and his fanbase has ZERO problems with all of this....ZERO


The point is clear..If he isn't losing any support over these fucked up dictator like comments, which any other politician will get heavily scrutinized over.......Then this clearly shows that Americans don't have a huge problem with dictatorship statements like these, thus we are susceptible for a dicatorship.


So yes, under the right circumstances and with the right narrative, somebody can become a dictator in the USA.......Now will Trump actually do it? Doubt it but I wouldn't be surprised.....But trump has show that it can be done.

I don't understand that argument???


As I understand it the pardon is only used once a person is convicted and cannot be used prior to conviction.

Trump cannot be charged or convicted without first being impeached.

If impeached he can be charged and convicted.

He would no longer have the power of pardon if convicted after being impeached.


What am I missing?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here's what I said:

Right, that was a vacuous statement of tribalism (obviously since the deficit is revenue minus spending, it makes no sense to say that only one of those is a factor; and Trump's contribution to destablizing the debt picture was on the revenue side). Then you said:

My denunciation of Trump and the GOP Congress did have a point. I think the US government spends too much money. That's a concrete statement. You can disagree with that statement, but to say it is meaningless is stupid. It has a simple and obvious meaning.

I also think the US government should take less of my money from me in the form of taxes. Again, feel free to disagree, but it is a meaningful statement.

Finally, my views on deficit spending aren't partisan, despite tribal being your new, shiny buzz word. I criticized Bush, Obama, and Trump for it.

So your "denunciation" of Trump spiking deficits through an ill-advised tax cut is saying that the gov't generally spends too much and listing all of the last three presidents, one of whom actually fixed the long-term debt.

No two sides at all there. And it includes specific disapproval for his actions. And yet you have the temerity to call anyone else dishonest? Anyway, I have no intention of spending my afternoon in an interminable Jack Savage flame war. On some topics, you are simply unable to debate in good faith.

Yes, that's the kind of sleazy approach I expect. After you've been definitively proved wrong, you exit with an ugly personal attack and a baseless declaration of victory.

 

[MikeMcMann]

And another loathsome nutter enters to defend Inga with a ridiculously false allegation.


...

Nothing i said 'defended Inga' so nice strawman Jack.

I was giving you my view of which I have stated numerous times to you in the past and which I held before the first time I ever engaged with you.

I actually enjoy your arguments on this forum as you always bring your A game and I know I will see the strongest albeit most partisan, left argument available on any given situation.

But this is not to argue over as its just my view but one I would have no problem betting all my personal wealth on if we could have an outsider read everything you've written and come to a conclusion. NO way I would lose that bet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nothing i said 'defended Inga' so nice strawman Jack.

I was giving you my view of which I have stated numerous times to you in the past and which I held before the first time I ever engaged with you.

I actually enjoy your arguments on this forum as you always bring your A game and I know I will see the strongest albeit most partisan, left argument available on any given situation.

But this is not to argue over as its just my view but one I would have no problem betting all my personal wealth on if we could have an outsider read everything you've written and come to a conclusion. NO way I would lose that bet.

I'd bet that you cannot produce a single example of partisanship influencing my thinking at all. The kind of example I'm talking about would be something like Inga completely abandoning her stated objection to deficit increases because her party is int he WH now. There is no one here who is less partisan than me (some who are the same).

 

[HomerThompson]

Nothing i said 'defended Inga' so nice strawman Jack.

I was giving you my view of which I have stated numerous times to you in the past and which I held before the first time I ever engaged with you.

I actually enjoy your arguments on this forum as you always bring your A game and I know I will see the strongest albeit most partisan, left argument available on any given situation.

But this is not to argue over as its just my view but one I would have no problem betting all my personal wealth on if we could have an outsider read everything you've written and come to a conclusion. NO way I would lose that bet.

You're clearly not smart enough to understand Jack's arguments. He's a center-left guy. He's pragmatic(to a fault). You're just another hapless boob who wandered into the war room.

 

[HomerThompson]

4 infants under the age of one at just 1 of the shelters. Yeah, I'd say tyranny is here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're clearly not smart enough to understand Jack's arguments. He's a center-left guy. He's pragmatic(to a fault). You're just another hapless boob who wandered into the war room.

Also, some people are confusing principles with partisanship, which is the opposite. If you genuinely don't care about cronyism and gov't corruption, believe that progressive taxation is immoral, think that workers have too much power in relation to capital owners, etc. and support Trump, I might have some unflattering words for you, but "partisan" would not be one. It's when you *don't* agree on issues and defend the party anyway that you're showing partisanship.

McMann also completely misstated my views on Peterson in a way that suggests to me that he was just making it up, just assuming I'd think a certain way and then acting as if I did. Even after I corrected him. Like drawing a mask on pictures of someone and then accusing him of always wearing a mask in pictures.

 

[HomerThompson]

Also, some people are confusing principles with partisanship, which is the opposite. If you genuinely don't care about cronyism and gov't corruption, believe that progressive taxation is immoral, think that workers have too much power in relation to capital owners, etc. and support Trump, I might have some unflattering words for you, but "partisan" would not be one. It's when you *don't* agree on issues and defend the party anyway that you're showing partisanship.

Exactly. There are plenty of Trump supporters here who aren't partisan, they're just terrible people.

 

[weed]

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'd bet that you cannot produce a single example of partisanship influencing my thinking at all. The kind of example I'm talking about would be something like Inga completely abandoning her stated objection to deficit increases because her party is int he WH now. There is no one here who is less partisan than me (some who are the same).

Are you suggesting that such a thing, if I bring it would not be subjective and you could just dismiss it?

Are you suggesting your view of Inga is not subjective and that she will agree with your view?

Because unless you think such views are not subjective this will not get anywhere particularly with you who I know still says CNN was partisan towards Trump in the election cycle when people say it was left or centre/left leaning.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You're clearly not smart enough to understand Jack's arguments. He's a center-left guy. He's pragmatic(to a fault). You're just another hapless boob who wandered into the war room.

love Homer Simpson and your Av to Post content is totally on point here.

I suggest you leave such discussions to the adults as any history of yours I have seen shows you to solely be a cheer leader for the left but as soon as you try to insert yourself into any of the debates you do no service to the left side as you typically make asinine, if not down right stupid and ignorant points that are not helpful to what you want to support.

Jack does not need your cheerleading and will do better without it.

 

[Andy Capp]

Im pretty sure theres nothing to worry about.... all the guys with guns told me that if the government ever became tyrannical they would revolt. So I expect them to swoop in to save the day anytime now

I mean theyve got guns, nothing could possibly go wrong could it?

Guns, hm?
https://www.rt.com/news/weapon-us-microwave-cannon-363/

 

[HomerThompson]

love Homer and your Av to Post content is totally on point here.

I suggest you leave such discussions to the adults as any history of yours I have seen shows you to solely be a cheer leader for the left but as soon as you try to insert yourself into any of the debates you do no service to the left side as you typically make asinine, if not down right stupid and ignorant points that are not helpful to what you want to support.

Jack does not need your cheerleading and will do better without it.

So, you've got no actual point to make? Congratulations on proving me correct.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Guns, hm?
https://www.rt.com/news/weapon-us-microwave-cannon-363/

holy shit.... that sounds excruciating

its like getting cooked by a laser pen