WaPo Obtains Transcripts From Trump's First Calls with Mexico and Australia

[time4fun]

WaPo has purportedly obtained (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/you-cannot-say-that-to-the-press-trump-urged-mexican-president-to-end-his-public-defiance-on-border-wall-transcript-reveals/2017/08/03/0c2c0a4e-7610-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?pushid=598322434f040728000 00003&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.fa3a3a2b3776)the call memos from Trump's early calls with Mexico and Australia

And it's a cringe-worthy read.


Portions of Trump’s strained conversations with Turnbull and Peña Nieto were reported earlier this year. But the transcripts trace the entire course of those calls from greeting to confrontation to — in the case of Turnbull — abrupt conclusion.

Both calls centered on immigration-related issues with high political stakes for Trump, who built his campaign around vows to erect new barriers — physical and legal — to entry to the United States.

But there was little discussion of the substance of those plans or their implications for U.S. relations with Australia and Mexico. Instead, Trump’s overriding concern seemed to center on how any approach would reflect on him.

Snippets from the Australia call:


The Jan. 28 call with Turnbull became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi*mir Putin. “This is ridiculous.”


“This is going to kill me,” he said to Turnbull. “I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.”


Snippets from the Mexico call:


But in his first White House call with Mexico’s president, Trump described his vow to charge Mexico as a growing political problem, pressuring the Mexican leader to stop saying publicly that his government would never pay.

“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued to make defiant statements.

The funding “will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said, adding later that “it will come out in the wash, and that is okay.” But “if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”


He described the wall as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”




Peña Nieto resisted, saying that Trump’s repeated threats had placed “a very big mark on our back, Mr. President.” He warned that “my position has been and will continue to be very firm, saying that Mexico cannot pay for the wall.”

Trump objected: “But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that.”

[Tgo01]

A) Let me guess, anonymous source?
B) Who gives a shit?

[Archigeek]

No one should really be shocked that the only thing Trump cares about is Trump. At least his call with Putin was pleasant.

[Wrathbringer]

Fake news.

[time4fun]

No one should really be shocked that the only thing Trump cares about is Trump. At least his call with Putin was pleasant.

Read the whole article if you get a chance (and haven't already). I was literally cringing the whole time.

8 years spent rehabilitating our international reputation after Bush destroyed it, and now, apparently, we're racing back to square one.

[Wrathbringer]

Read the whole article if you get a chance (and haven't already). I was literally cringing the whole time.

8 years spent rehabilitating our international reputation after Bush destroyed it, and now, apparently, we're racing back to square one.

You're retarded.

[Tgo01]

8 years spent rehabilitating our international reputation after Bush destroyed it, and now, apparently, we're racing back to square one.

You mean 8 years of being a submissive cuck under Obama, bowing to dictators and other foreign leaders, trying to "mend" our relationship with Venezuela only for Chavez a few years later to attack Obama by saying Obama somehow gave him cancer. Oh, and a few years after that for Venezuela to turn to total shit? Yeah, instead of standing up to thugs like Chavez like the US usually does, we legitimized his leadership and now millions are suffering.

Thanks, Obama!

[Ashliana]

:rofl: His comments about Mexico are especially funny in light of the fact that he continued to publicly stress that they would never, ever, ever, be paying for Trump's nonsensical wall.

Threatening to cut off diplomatic ties with our 3rd largest trading partner because he wouldn't agree to coordinate his administration's stance based on a campaign talking point designed to cater to the most wildly deluded and ignorant right-wing?

Hilarious. It's like Wrathbringer got elected president.

[Tgo01]

:rofl: His comments about Mexico are especially funny in light of the fact that he continued to publicly stress that they would never, ever, ever, be paying for Trump's nonsensical wall.

Threatening to cut off diplomatic ties with our 3rd largest trading partner because he wouldn't agree to coordinate his administration's stance based on a campaign talking point designed to cater to the most wildly deluded and ignorant right-wing?

Hilarious. It's like Wrathbringer got elected president.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/382154855f08d2213cb6a7b38c42a4b5/tumblr_nhhm4c5Ajd1tudpr5o1_500.gif

[Wrathbringer]

:rofl: His comments about Mexico are especially funny in light of the fact that he continued to publicly stress that they would never, ever, ever, be paying for Trump's nonsensical wall.

Threatening to cut off diplomatic ties with our 3rd largest trading partner because he wouldn't agree to coordinate his administration's stance based on a campaign talking point designed to cater to the most wildly deluded and ignorant right-wing?

Hilarious. It's like Wrathbringer got elected president.

I'd have already had democrats rounded up into rehabilitation camps.

[Stumplicker]

I'd have already had democrats rounded up into rehabilitation camps.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLts-sXlLEM

[Ashliana]

You mean 8 years of being a submissive cuck under Obama, bowing to dictators and other foreign leaders, trying to "mend" our relationship with Venezuela only for Chavez a few years later to attack Obama by saying Obama somehow gave him cancer. Oh, and a few years after that for Venezuela to turn to total shit? Yeah, instead of standing up to thugs like Chavez like the US usually does, we legitimized his leadership and now millions are suffering.

Thanks, Obama!

I love the cognitive dissonance that goes into you criticizing Obama for "cowing to dictators" while simultaneously supporting Trump, who endlessly effuses praise for Putin, Duterte, Erdogan and Kim Jong Un. Are you even reading yourself?

FYI, that relationship with Chavez didn't magically disintegrate for no reason. Chavez attacked Obama precisely because he didn't kowtow to them, and criticized their increasing relationship with anti-democratic nations.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Love the unironic use of the word "cuck," though.

[Neveragain]

WaPo has purportedly obtained (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/you-cannot-say-that-to-the-press-trump-urged-mexican-president-to-end-his-public-defiance-on-border-wall-transcript-reveals/2017/08/03/0c2c0a4e-7610-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?pushid=598322434f040728000 00003&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.fa3a3a2b3776)the call memos from Trump's early calls with Mexico and Australia

And it's a cringe-worthy read.



Snippets from the Australia call:






Snippets from the Mexico call:

Soooo, your fake Russian narrative is falling apart?

Heated phone exchanges, impeach!

[peam]

"You are a very hard person to study, because you are sending out messages that are important to the Mexican people."

Jesus.

[Ashliana]

Heated phone exchanges, impeach!

Remember when Trump was hysterically claiming that the "fake news media" was making up their contentious phone call?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827480386120929280?lang=en

Anything to say about this being the 10,000th time Trump flat-out lied? No? Didn't think so.

[Wrathbringer]

Remember when Trump was hysterically claiming that the "fake news media" was making up their contentious phone call?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827480386120929280?lang=en

Anything to say about this being the 10,000th time Trump flat-out lied? No? Didn't think so.

Lol @ your rep

[Gompers]

Lol @ your rep

Using fake internet points as an argument? Bold strategy, Cotton.

[Fortybox]

Pathetic. I think 2018 is going to be a slam dunk for Republicans.

[Neveragain]

Remember when Trump was hysterically claiming that the "fake news media" was making up their contentious phone call?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827480386120929280?lang=en

Anything to say about this being the 10,000th time Trump flat-out lied? No? Didn't think so.

I didn't say either way. I'm more interested in the sinking fake Russian narrative that risked the safety of the entire globe.

But phone calls, impeach reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Ashliana]

I didn't say either way. I'm more interested in the sinking fake Russian narrative that risked the safety of the entire globe.

But phone calls, impeach reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

And what "sinking fake Russian narrative" would that be? The one where his own children were caught red-handed colluding with Russian operatives? The one where his Attorney General lied under oath repeatedly about his meetings with Russia? The one where Flynn was forced to resign after a handful of days for similarly lying? The one where his son-in-law has been forced to, erm, "retroactively" disclose dozens of foreign contacts and meetings? The one where Trump blatantly committed obstruction of justice by trying to influence an investigation into his campaign's wrongdoing, and then fired the FBI director in order to do the same? And then admitted to that motivation explicitly? The one where there's a special prosecutor investigating all those issues as we speak?

Oh. That "sinking fake Russian narrative."

Good to know that you don't care about the president bald-faced lying, as he is called out for doing on a weekly basis, though.

[time4fun]

And what "sinking fake Russian narrative" would that be? The one where his own children were caught red-handed colluding with Russian operatives? The one where his Attorney General lied under oath repeatedly about his meetings with Russia? The one where Flynn was forced to resign after a handful of days for similarly lying? The one where his son-in-law has been forced to, erm, "retroactively" disclose dozens of foreign contacts and meetings? The one where Trump blatantly committed obstruction of justice by trying to influence an investigation into his campaign's wrongdoing, and then fired the FBI director in order to do the same? And then admitted to that motivation explicitly? The one where there's a special prosecutor investigating all those issues as we speak?

Oh. That "sinking fake Russian narrative."

Good to know that you don't care about the president bald-faced lying, as he is called out for doing on a weekly basis, though.

Sinking fake Russian narrative. Wow.

The whole "You can't trust any news sources but ours" is definitely paying off for the right-wing media.

[Neveragain]

And what "sinking fake Russian narrative" would that be? The one where his own children were caught red-handed colluding with Russian operatives? The one where his Attorney General lied under oath repeatedly about his meetings with Russia? The one where Flynn was forced to resign after a handful of days for similarly lying? The one where his son-in-law has been forced to, erm, "retroactively" disclose dozens of foreign contacts and meetings? The one where Trump blatantly committed obstruction of justice by trying to influence an investigation into his campaign's wrongdoing, and then fired the FBI director in order to do the same? And then admitted to that motivation explicitly? The one where there's a special prosecutor investigating all those issues as we speak?

Oh. That "sinking fake Russian narrative."

Good to know that you don't care about the president bald-faced lying, as he is called out for doing on a weekly basis, though.

Yes, the fake Russian narrative that has been going on for well over a year with 0 people being found guilty in a court of law. I know you wish it was guilty until proven innocent.

This is a first for me hearing of lies in politics.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

[Fortybox]

Yes, the fake Russian narrative that has been going on for well over a year with 0 people being found guilty in a court of law. I know you wish it was guilty until proven innocent.

This is a first for me hearing of lies in politics.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

June 2009:


"And That Means That No Matter How We Reform Health Care, We Will Keep This Promise To The American People: If You Like Your Doctor, You Will Be Able To Keep Your Doctor, Period. If You Like Your Health Care Plan, You'll Be Able To Keep Your Health Care Plan, Period."

-President Obama

[Neveragain]

June 2009:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IaAZxG0g4

Yes massa.

[Fortybox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IaAZxG0g4

Yes massa.

Exactly...it's fake outrage just because the other side is doing it.

And don't think I'm not pissed off at the crap the Republicans are pulling with Obamacare. 7 years of promises thrown out the window.

[Ashliana]

Yes, the fake Russian narrative that has been going on for well over a year with 0 people being found guilty in a court of law. I know you wish it was guilty until proven innocent.

:rofl: Investigation and prosecution are slow. That doesn't mean it's not going in the works. Or do you have magic knowledge that no one else has, and know that Mueller's investigation has somehow been stopped? Oh.

And FYI, only courts have to wait for a conviction before punishing someone. Political consequences are an entirely different matter, and the wrongdoing of Trump and his buddies has already been established, in many cases by their own admission. Trump is on record directly stating that he fired Comey specifically to impede the FBI's investigation into his circle's wrongdoing, and expressed "relief" after doing so. Likewise, Trump Jr's admission of blatantly colluding with Russia is now fact.


This is a first for me hearing of lies in politics.

The fact that you can't tell those apart pretty much explains how you got where you are. It's very funny that you think Obama's statements about people being able to keep their plans (which was certainly possible in many circumstances) while seemingly having no problem with the myriad of HUGE Trump whoppers about everything, but especially healthcare, such as:

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody... There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

"I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid."

“I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now."

"We have to get rid of the artificial lines around the states."

"​I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not," Trump said. He added: "​The government's gonna pay for it."

How many of those promises do you think made it into any of the GOP's healthcare bills?

Spoiler Alert: Zero. He didn't even know what was in their bills, all the while claiming he'd sign literally anything the GOP delivered, and they couldn't even do that.

[Neveragain]

:rofl: Investigation and prosecution are slow. That doesn't mean it's not going in the works. Or do you have magic knowledge that no one else has, and know that Mueller's investigation has somehow been stopped? Oh.

And FYI, only courts have to wait for a conviction before punishing someone. Political consequences are an entirely different matter, and the wrongdoing of Trump and his buddies has already been established, in many cases by their own admission. Trump is on record directly stating that he fired Comey specifically to impede the FBI's investigation into his circle's wrongdoing, and expressed "relief" after doing so. Likewise, Trump Jr's admission of blatantly colluding with Russia is now fact.



The fact that you can't tell those apart pretty much explains how you got where you are. It's very funny that you think Obama's statements about people being able to keep their plans (which was certainly possible in many circumstances) while seemingly having no problem with the myriad of HUGE Trump whoppers about everything, but especially healthcare, such as:

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody... There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

"I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid."

“I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now."

"We have to get rid of the artificial lines around the states."

"​I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not," Trump said. He added: "​The government's gonna pay for it."

How many of those promises do you think made it into any of the GOP's healthcare bills?

Spoiler Alert: Zero. He didn't even know what was in their bills, all the while claiming he'd sign literally anything the GOP delivered, and they couldn't even do that.

How many people have been found guilty in a court of law Ash?

Remember, none of this happens if the Democrats and Clinton follow security protocol.

But...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8

[Ashliana]

How many people have been found guilty in a court of law Ash?

Remember, none of this happens if the Democrats and Clinton follow security protocol.

But...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8

So by extension, nothing Clinton (much less Obama) ever did should concern you, right? Since they weren't convicted in a court of law of anything?

And, like I said, Mueller's investigation remains in progress and they're ramping up, not down. Let me know how your talking point fares as it proceeds.

[Neveragain]

So by extension, nothing Clinton (much less Obama) ever did should concern you, right? Since they weren't convicted in a court of law of anything?

And, like I said, Mueller's investigation remains in progress and they're ramping up, not down. Let me know how your talking point fares as it proceeds.

It's a shit rope Ash. My talking points have not changed one bit, it's why I'm trying to convince people like you to NEVER trust the government when they say they are here to help.

I didn't vote, why do you keep forgetting this?

[Archigeek]

TRUMP TO PEÑA NIETO: I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.

Ah New Hampshire, you drug-infested den you!

[Bekke]

Every politician lies.

This guy is just SO FUCKING BAD AT IT it's unbelievable.

Every day, lying about big things (it's the fault of Congress that Russian relations are so bad) to small things (the head of the Boy Scouts called me to say best speech ever), to ridiculous things (I am the world's greatest person).

Every day the comms people have to twist themselves into somehow remotely validating the shit he spews so he doesn't look completely delusional. I'm no psychologist, but I'm beginning to wonder what's worse- the constant need to lie (badly), or the idea that he really believes what he says?

As a Republican, it's embarrassing to watch the constant defending of this completely unprepared, incompetent man attempt to validate himself at the expense of the country.

[Tgo01]

Every day, lying about big things (it's the fault of Congress that Russian relations are so bad)

Well...isn't it Congress' fault?


As a Republican, it's embarrassing to watch the constant defending of this completely unprepared, incompetent man attempt to validate himself at the expense of the country.

Hillary lost.

[Steve]

Well...isn't it Congress' fault?



Hillary lost.

Wait...Hillary LOST?! That's such a relief. She looked all tuckered out. Towards the end of the campaign there she was passing out with pneumonia I heard. If only Mr. Trump had given her that grab maneuver he was talking about I bet she woulda woke up.

[Tgo01]

Wait...Hillary LOST?!

Sorry you had to find out like this.

[Bekke]

Well...isn't it Congress' fault?

Oh. Relations were at high-water mark before he signed the sanctions bill. Ok.



Hillary lost.

Who mentioned Hillary?

Why does every statement questioning the efficacy of Trump have to include Hillary?

[Steve]

Who mentioned Hillary?

Why does every statement questioning the efficacy of Trump have to include Hillary?

Because his win against Hillary was the only win he's had so far. He's lost every fight he's picked since he became POTUS. Gotta keep going back to the well until he wins another fight.

[Ashliana]

Hillary lost.

I like how you can't rationalize Trump's complete incompetence at the job you elected him to do without falling back to Hillary.

"BUTTERY MALES!"
-Tgo

[Tgo01]

Who mentioned Hillary?

Me. Are you having a stroke?


Why does every statement questioning the efficacy of Trump have to include Hillary?

Because she lost.

Don't worry, time4fun will be along shortly to suck your penis given your belligerent statements thus far.

[Tgo01]

He's lost every fight he's picked since he became POTUS. Gotta keep going back to the well until he wins another fight.

Illegal immigration down: WIN!
Ramping up deportations of illegals: WIN!
Securing funding for the border wall: WIN!
Killing TPP: WIN!
Withdrawing from Paris Accord: WIN!
Approving Keystone: WIN!

That's all just off the top of my head.

But yes, no victories since November 8th :(

[Ashliana]

Illegal immigration down: WIN!

Illegal immigration has been on the downswing ever since the Great Recession.



Ramping up deportations of illegals: WIN!

Likewise, deportations reached their highest levels under Obama, to the point where progressives called him the "deporter in chief." Where's your data that they're up since Trump took office? Reporting shows the opposite (https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/05/under-trump-immigrants-arrests-are-up-but-deportation-is-down/527103/).


Securing funding for the border wall: WIN!

:rofl: Erm, no. If you're referring to the teeeeeeensy portion of the wall that Trump is trying to get funded to save face to his base, the one that he threw transgender soldiers under the bus for, then no, that isn't a done deal yet, Tgo. The House approved it. The Senate hasn't, and it's not law. And even if it becomes law, a far cry from what Trump moronically tried selling to his base.


Killing TPP: WIN!

Um.. Yeah. That thing that both candidates opposed? Okay. The TPP is one of those things that keeps coming back to life periodically, like the GOP push to end net neutrality.


Withdrawing from Paris Accord: WIN!

A unilateral withdraw from a non-binding treaty with voluntary agreements? What a win! A win for who or what, precisely? This'll be good.


Approving Keystone: WIN!

What a victory.


That's all just off the top of my head.

But yes, no victories since November 8th :(

The only significant piece of legislation Trump has passed has been the Russia sanctions bill that he strenuously objected to, as he's a Putin shill. The only reason he didn't veto it is because Congress decided to stop fighting for 2 seconds to protect the country. From Trump.

The degree to which you're in the tank for the most comically inept president in history, and the mental gymnastics to which you're going to declare him a "winner" is very impressive. You should work for the administration.

[Tgo01]

Illegal immigration has been on the downswing ever since the Great Recession.



Likewise, deportations reached their highest levels under Obama, to the point where progressives called him the "deporter in chief." Where's your data that they're up since Trump took office? Reporting shows the opposite (https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/05/under-trump-immigrants-arrests-are-up-but-deportation-is-down/527103/).



:rofl: Erm, no. If you're referring to the teeeeeeensy portion of the wall that Trump is trying to get funded to save face to his base, the one that he threw transgender soldiers under the bus for, then no, that isn't a done deal yet, Tgo. The House approved it. The Senate hasn't, and it's not law. And even if it becomes law, a far cry from what Trump moronically tried selling to his base.



Um.. Yeah. That thing that both candidates opposed? Okay. The TPP is one of those things that keeps coming back to life periodically, like the GOP push to end net neutrality.



A unilateral withdraw from a non-binding treaty with voluntary agreements? What a win! A win for who or what, precisely? This'll be good.



What a victory.



The only significant piece of legislation Trump has passed has been the Russia sanctions bill that he strenuously objected to, as he's a Putin shill. The only reason he didn't veto it is because Congress decided to stop fighting for 2 seconds to protect the country. From Trump.

The degree to which you're in the tank for the most comically inept president in history, and the mental gymnastics to which you're going to declare him a "winner" is very impressive. You should work for the administration.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4015/4691551938_f43885c655_b.jpg

[Ashliana]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4015/4691551938_f43885c655_b.jpg

https://static.minichan.org/img/1458783499874897.jpg

[Archigeek]

TRUMP TO PEÑA NIETO: In the latest election, I won with a large percentage of Hispanic voters. I do not know if you heard, but with Cuba, I had 84 percent with the Cuban American vote.

Well done comrade, you won the Cuban vote. Tomorrow, Russia!

(Note: Trump only won 54% of the Cuban American vote in Florida, and no one parses it out anywhere else. No one should be surprised that Trump can't even get the facts right in a humble brag, if you can call it that.)

[Tgo01]

Well done comrade, you won the Cuban vote. Tomorrow, Russia!

(Note: Trump only won 54% of the Cuban American vote in Florida, and no one parses it out anywhere else. No one should be surprised that Trump can't even get the facts right in a humble brag, if you can call it that.)

Literally unfit to serve. Impeach now!

[Parkbandit]

Wait...Hillary LOST?! That's such a relief. She looked all tuckered out. Towards the end of the campaign there she was passing out with pneumonia I heard. If only Mr. Trump had given her that grab maneuver he was talking about I bet she woulda woke up.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hillary-Clinton-drowsy-e1477658766790.jpg

[Ashliana]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hillary-Clinton-drowsy-e1477658766790.jpg

http://dailycandidnews.com/wp-content/uploads/17098566_10154717687732535_7581228930245529420_n-708x400.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Illegal immigration has been on the downswing ever since the Great Recession.

It's been significantly down since Trump was elected. Weird how all of a sudden the welcome mat isn't out.. people stop coming here illegally...


Um.. Yeah. That thing that both candidates opposed? Okay. The TPP is one of those things that keeps coming back to life periodically, like the GOP push to end net neutrality.

“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” -Hillary Clinton 2012

The only reason she started opposing it was Bernie forced it. She wouldn't have done shit had she been elected.


A unilateral withdraw from a non-binding treaty with voluntary agreements? What a win! A win for who or what, precisely? This'll be good.

Then why was there such crazy liberal talk about him pulling out of it? Also, it wasn't a treaty, since Congress didn't approve it.


What a victory.

Pipeline was a victory. Sorry.


The only significant piece of legislation Trump has passed has been the Russia sanctions bill that he strenuously objected to, as he's a Putin shill. The only reason he didn't veto it is because Congress decided to stop fighting for 2 seconds to protect the country. From Trump.

LOL. Stop.


The degree to which you're in the tank for the most comically inept president in history, and the mental gymnastics to which you're going to declare him a "winner" is very impressive. You should work for the administration.

STILL better than Hillary Clinton!

http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Celebration-GIF-Image-Download-17.gif

[Tgo01]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hillary-Clinton-drowsy-e1477658766790.jpg

She literally looks like the Crypt Keeper there.

http://screencrush.com/files/2016/04/tales-pic.jpg?w=720

[Fortybox]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xy4MIWZYSFB2o/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xy4MIWZYSFB2o/giphy.gif

Is that Bill in the background with the shit eating grin?

I can't tell, all old white men look alike to me.

[Fortybox]

Is that Bill in the background with the shit eating grin?

I can't tell, all old white men look alike to me.

Racist! Hate speech! Climate change denier!

I think that's Time4fun.

[Neveragain]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xy4MIWZYSFB2o/giphy.gif

Man she got into the oxy pretty heavy that day.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqK2PkFgtw

[Archigeek]

TRUMP TO TURNBULL: “This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. … It makes me look so bad, and I have only been here a week.”

I love a good qualifier when claiming to be the world's greatest person.

[time4fun]

Well done comrade, you won the Cuban vote. Tomorrow, Russia!

(Note: Trump only won 54% of the Cuban American vote in Florida, and no one parses it out anywhere else. No one should be surprised that Trump can't even get the facts right in a humble brag, if you can call it that.)

You think he realizes Cuba isn't in Mexico?

[time4fun]

And what "sinking fake Russian narrative" would that be? The one where his own children were caught red-handed colluding with Russian operatives? The one where his Attorney General lied under oath repeatedly about his meetings with Russia? The one where Flynn was forced to resign after a handful of days for similarly lying? The one where his son-in-law has been forced to, erm, "retroactively" disclose dozens of foreign contacts and meetings? The one where Trump blatantly committed obstruction of justice by trying to influence an investigation into his campaign's wrongdoing, and then fired the FBI director in order to do the same? And then admitted to that motivation explicitly? The one where there's a special prosecutor investigating all those issues as we speak?

Oh. That "sinking fake Russian narrative."

Good to know that you don't care about the president bald-faced lying, as he is called out for doing on a weekly basis, though.

So super fun timing:

WSJ reporting today (https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287) that:


Special Counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury in Washington to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, a sign that his inquiry is growing in intensity and entering a new phase, according to people familiar with the matter.

The grand jury, which began its work in recent weeks, signals that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry will likely continue for months. Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign or associates colluded with the Kremlin as part of that effort.


Oh, and there's more:

CNN reporting today (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-trump-one-year-financial-ties/index.html) that:


Federal investigators exploring whether Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russian spies have seized on Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia as one of the most fertile avenues for moving their probe forward, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The web of financial ties could offer a more concrete path toward potential prosecution than the broader and murkier questions of collusion in the 2016 campaign, these sources said.
One year after the FBI opened an investigation, the probe is now managed by special counsel Robert Mueller. Sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 elections, alongside the ongoing scrutiny of possible illegal coordination with Russian spy agencies and alleged attempts by President Donald Trump and others to obstruct the FBI investigation. Even investigative leads that have nothing to do with Russia but involve Trump associates are being referred to the special counsel to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate, according to two law enforcement sources.


"Sinking fake Russian narrative"

Riiiiight.

[SHAFT]

Hooray, grand jury! You know what comes after a grand jury? Indictments!

[hello]

Wouldn't be surprised if Trump goes down for something totally unrelated.

[time4fun]

Hooray, grand jury! You know what comes after a grand jury? Indictments!

Ha. Not necessarily. But it means that there's enough evidence to start getting subpoenas. Purportedly they have already issued some in relation to the Trump Jr meeting.

[ClydeR]

Will they ever catch the leaker? There have never been this many leaks from a White House. Ever.


Leaking the transcript of a presidential call to a foreign leader is unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous. It is vitally important that a president be able to speak confidentially—and perhaps even more important that foreign leaders understand that they can reply in confidence.

More... (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-leaking-transcripts-of-trumps-calls-is-so-dangerous/535809/)

[SHAFT]

Ha. Not necessarily. But it means that there's enough evidence to start getting subpoenas. Purportedly they have already issued some in relation to the Trump Jr meeting.

I'm assuming. The grand jury will lead to subpoenas and also indictments. I'd bet cash on it.

[SHAFT]

Will they ever catch the leaker? There have never been this many leaks from a White House. Ever.

Another sign how damaged Trump's presidency is. Every day it's more and more.

[time4fun]

I'm assuming. The grand jury will lead to subpoenas and also indictments. I'd bet cash on it.

I agree it's highly unlikely that everyone walks out of this unscathed.

The failure to disclose foreign contacts and failure to register as foreign agents alone will likely grab several people (as this Russia situation is sort of the worst-case-scenario that these laws were put into place for).

A few of those people will end up squealing on others in exchange for immunity or reduced sentences (provided there's stuff to squeal about). And that's when it gets interesting/depressing.

[Tgo01]

The grand jury will lead to subpoenas and also indictments.

Indictments on Trump?

[Bekke]

How would he react to indictments on his children?

Jr. is in trouble at the moment. Claiming naivete only goes so far when there are email trails and phone records.

Eric is a box of rocks.

Ivanka may be in trouble because of her husband's involvement with back channels, Chinese investor visas and failed Qatar investment loans.

[Tgo01]

How would he react to indictments on his children?

Jr. is in trouble at the moment. Claiming naivete only goes so far when there are email trails and phone records.

Eric is a box of rocks.

Ivanka may be in trouble because of her husband's involvement with back channels, Chinese investor visas and failed Qatar investment loans.

Whatever you need to sleep better at night.

[Bekke]

I sleep fine, thanks for your concern.

Real question though.

Why are you so dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree that Trump is a fine, upstanding President?

What's wrong with being a Republican who doesn't agree with the way he's handling things?

[Tgo01]

I sleep fine

I know, because your obsession over Trump's family being thrown in jail. It's what I just said.


Why are you so dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree that Trump is a fine, upstanding President?

It has nothing to do with people not agreeing that Trump is a fine, upstanding president. It's the hyperbolic bullshit like all of Trump's kids are going to get thrown in jail. I mean come on. There is no middle ground between "Fine, upstanding president" and "All of his kids are corrupt pieces of shit and will be thrown in jail. And Trump too!"?


What's wrong with being a Republican who doesn't agree with the way he's handling things?

Nothing wrong with it, it's just funny because just the other day I was explaining to time4fun how I roll my eyes whenever someone says something like "As a Republican..." and then goes on to bash Republicans.

Being a Republican doesn't give your argument of why you hate Trump any more weight than your typical rabid lunatic Democrat.

[Bekke]

You're very touchy about this.

I never said anyone was going to go to jail, nor did I say any of them were corrupt. I did say there have, apparently, been some dubious things done.

The question as to whether there's a possibility they're being investigated for these things has been answered. Grand Jury subpoenas have been issued for the Jr./lawyer meeting, for example.

I fail to see how my interest in this automatically makes me a rabid lunatic Democrat.

[Tgo01]

You're very touchy about this.

You ask me a couple of questions, I answer, and now I'm being "touchy"? This is why I don't take anyone seriously who says "As a <insert class here I am about to verbally rape.>"


I never said anyone was going to go to jail, nor did I say any of them were corrupt. I did say there have, apparently, been some dubious things done.


How would he react to indictments on his children?

Jr. is in trouble at the moment. Claiming naivete only goes so far when there are email trails and phone records.

Ivanka may be in trouble because of her husband's involvement with back channels, Chinese investor visas and failed Qatar investment loans.

I may have been born in the day, but it wasn't yesterday.


I fail to see how my interest in this automatically makes me a rabid lunatic Democrat.

I didn't say you were a rabid lunatic Democrat. We got off to such a good start, Bekke. Don't be dragging strawmen into our conversations.

[time4fun]

I sleep fine, thanks for your concern.

Real question though.

Why are you so dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree that Trump is a fine, upstanding President?

What's wrong with being a Republican who doesn't agree with the way he's handling things?

Tgo is drawn to Trump in part because of of his authoritarianism- which means Tgo is neither interested personally in questioning the President nor is he tolerant of anyone else who does.

In political psychology parlance, Tgo is your classic example of Authoritarianism/Social Dominance Orientation. Folks like him tend to demonstrate deference to authority, aggression toward outgroups, a rigidly hierarchical view of the world, and resistance to new experiences. They also tend to view the world through the lens of fear and threat.

-The immigrants are coming to take our jobs and kill us
-We can't take in refugees, they're full of terrorists who are out to get us
-If we don't have strong borders, we're not a country
-We need a strong wall between us and the (brown) foreigners
-If you question the President, you are his enemy
-LGBTQ people shouldn't be asking for equal rights
-Black and white, binary thinking (Us vs Them)
-Muslims are here to invade us and force us to live under Sharia law
-It's best when we withdraw from the global stage because the rest of the world is taking advantage of us ("Leaving the Paris accord makes us safer/stronger/better")
-etc etc

When people like Tgo say that they feel like Trump is speaking right to them- they're correct.

He is.

[Bekke]

I know, because your obsession over Trump's family being thrown in jail. It's what I just said.



It has nothing to do with people not agreeing that Trump is a fine, upstanding president. It's the hyperbolic bullshit like all of Trump's kids are going to get thrown in jail. I mean come on. There is no middle ground between "Fine, upstanding president" and "All of his kids are corrupt pieces of shit and will be thrown in jail. And Trump too!"?



Nothing wrong with it, it's just funny because just the other day I was explaining to time4fun how I roll my eyes whenever someone says something like "As a Republican..." and then goes on to bash Republicans.

Being a Republican doesn't give your argument of why you hate Trump any more weight than your typical rabid lunatic Democrat.

But I'm done. You win.

[Tgo01]

Tgo is drawn to Trump in part because of of his authoritarianism- which means Tgo is neither interested personally in questioning the President nor is he tolerant of anyone else who does.

In political psychology parlance, Tgo is your classic example of Authoritarianism/Social Dominance Orientation. Folks like him tend to demonstrate deference to authority, aggression toward outgroups, a rigidly hierarchical view of the world, and resistance to new experiences. They also tend to view the world through the lens of fear and threat.

-The immigrants are coming to take our jobs and kill us
-We can't take in refugees, they're full of terrorists who are out to get us
-If we don't have strong borders, we're not a country
-We need a strong wall between us and the (brown) foreigners
-If you question the President, you are his enemy
-LGBTQ people shouldn't be asking for equal rights
-Black and white, binary thinking (Us vs Them)
-Muslims are here to invade us and force us to live under Sharia law
-It's best when we withdraw from the global stage because the rest of the world is taking advantage of us ("Leaving the Paris accord makes us safer/stronger/better")
-etc etc

When people like Tgo say that they feel like Trump is speaking right to them- they're correct.

He is.


Don't worry, time4fun will be along shortly to suck your penis given your belligerent statements thus far.

Did it feel good, Bekke?

[Tgo01]

But I'm done. You win.

Another victory! I ain't tired of winning yet!

[Neveragain]

Tgo is drawn to Trump in part because of of his authoritarianism- which means Tgo is neither interested personally in questioning the President nor is he tolerant of anyone else who does.

In political psychology parlance, Tgo is your classic example of Authoritarianism/Social Dominance Orientation. Folks like him tend to demonstrate deference to authority, aggression toward outgroups, a rigidly hierarchical view of the world, and resistance to new experiences. They also tend to view the world through the lens of fear and threat.

-The immigrants are coming to take our jobs and kill us
-We can't take in refugees, they're full of terrorists who are out to get us
-If we don't have strong borders, we're not a country
-We need a strong wall between us and the (brown) foreigners
-If you question the President, you are his enemy
-LGBTQ people shouldn't be asking for equal rights
-Black and white, binary thinking (Us vs Them)
-Muslims are here to invade us and force us to live under Sharia law
-It's best when we withdraw from the global stage because the rest of the world is taking advantage of us ("Leaving the Paris accord makes us safer/stronger/better")
-etc etc

When people like Tgo say that they feel like Trump is speaking right to them- they're correct.

He is.

https://www.bombthrowers.com/app/uploads/JanBrady_Russia.png

WV Governor just went Red today. You lost without an election.

[Methais]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xy4MIWZYSFB2o/giphy.gif

If that wasn't some neurological shit flaring up or whatever I'd say she has pretty decent moves for an old white girl.

[Methais]

So super fun timing:

WSJ reporting today (https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287) that:




Oh, and there's more:

CNN reporting today (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-trump-one-year-financial-ties/index.html) that:




"Sinking fake Russian narrative"

Riiiiight.

You should stop posting until this months long investigation is finished. Everyone who isn't Back, cuckwolff, Ashliana, or cancer will appreciate it.

[Methais]

Tgo is drawn to Trump in part because of of his authoritarianism- which means Tgo is neither interested personally in questioning the President nor is he tolerant of anyone else who does.

In political psychology parlance, Tgo is your classic example of Authoritarianism/Social Dominance Orientation. Folks like him tend to demonstrate deference to authority, aggression toward outgroups, a rigidly hierarchical view of the world, and resistance to new experiences. They also tend to view the world through the lens of fear and threat.

-The immigrants are coming to take our jobs and kill us
-We can't take in refugees, they're full of terrorists who are out to get us
-If we don't have strong borders, we're not a country
-We need a strong wall between us and the (brown) foreigners
-If you question the President, you are his enemy
-LGBTQ people shouldn't be asking for equal rights
-Black and white, binary thinking (Us vs Them)
-Muslims are here to invade us and force us to live under Sharia law
-It's best when we withdraw from the global stage because the rest of the world is taking advantage of us ("Leaving the Paris accord makes us safer/stronger/better")
-etc etc

When people like Tgo say that they feel like Trump is speaking right to them- they're correct.

He is.

MY FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLIII IIINGSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ashliana]

You should stop posting until this months long investigation is finished. Everyone who isn't Back, cuckwolff, Ashliana, or cancer will appreciate it.

What would we be talking about in the politics folder if not about Trump's dumpster fire of a presidency?


https://www.bombthrowers.com/app/uploads/JanBrady_Russia.png

WV Governor just went Red today. You lost without an election.

Okay, I laughed at that. +1.

[Methais]

What would we be talking about in the politics folder if not about Trump's dumpster fire of a presidency?

Gemstone politics.

IMPEACH CRUXOPHIM BECAUSE REASONS!

[SHAFT]

Indictments on Trump?

Who knows? But this will lead to his resignation or impeachment. Mueller will make a case for obstruction of justice and other possible crimes. Mueller doesn't have 16 prosecutors who specialize in money laundering and financial crimes for nothing.

I don't expect trump to go to prison, but he won't finish his first term. Trump and associates are in deep with the Russians and it isn't a secret any more.

I said months ago he wouldn't finish his first term.

[SHAFT]

Whatever you need to sleep better at night.

Everything that was said is public record. Including eric trump being a box of rocks.

Don JR violated FECA then lied about it with help from Don the Con.

[Tgo01]

Everything that was said is public record. Including eric trump being a box of rocks.

Don JR violated FECA then lied about it with help from Don the Con.

Whatever you need to get it up.

[SHAFT]

7 months of total governmental control and nothing has been accomplished. Complete waste of time so far.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/F7F6770C-0929-47FA-8F70-C9E2CAA55D24.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/F7F6770C-0929-47FA-8F70-C9E2CAA55D24.jpg.html)

[SHAFT]

GOP would be better off without Trump at the helm. Probably could've gotten healthcare done without him.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/34F83B90-A79D-47B1-909C-F84CD1F4A90A.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/34F83B90-A79D-47B1-909C-F84CD1F4A90A.jpg.html)

[SHAFT]

Trump has nightmares over these guys.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/EBAD74EF-3249-470D-B8BE-EA18170CBB35.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/EBAD74EF-3249-470D-B8BE-EA18170CBB35.jpg.html)

[RichardCranium]

GOP would be better off without Trump at the helm. Probably could've gotten healthcare done without him.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/34F83B90-A79D-47B1-909C-F84CD1F4A90A.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/34F83B90-A79D-47B1-909C-F84CD1F4A90A.jpg.html)

I think everyone agrees with that.

[Back]

Here I thought Trump winning even just the nomination was embarrassing enough... it just keep getting worse and worse.

[Wrathbringer]

Here I thought Trump winning even just the nomination was embarrassing enough... it just keep getting worse and worse.

You lost get over it.

[Gelston]

Here I thought Trump winning even just the nomination was embarrassing enough... it just keep getting worse and worse.

And Hillary was the best candidate the Democrats could muster. Incredible.

[Wrathbringer]

Who knows? But this will lead to his resignation or impeachment. Mueller will make a case for obstruction of justice and other possible crimes. Mueller doesn't have 16 prosecutors who specialize in money laundering and financial crimes for nothing.

I don't expect trump to go to prison, but he won't finish his first term. Trump and associates are in deep with the Russians and it isn't a secret any more.

I said months ago he wouldn't finish his first term.

You're retarded.

[Stumplicker]

You ask me a couple of questions, I answer, and now I'm being "touchy"? This is why I don't take anyone seriously who says "As a <insert class here I am about to verbally rape.>"

I know, because your obsession over Trump's family being thrown in jail. It's what I just said.

I may have been born in the day, but it wasn't yesterday.

I didn't say you were a rabid lunatic Democrat. We got off to such a good start, Bekke. Don't be dragging strawmen into our conversations.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the other side of this coin, weren't you one of the people in that 80 page thread foaming at the mouth that HILLARY IS GOING TO JAIL!!!!! HILLARY IS GOING TO JAIL!!!! Also, I notice you call anything a strawman argument instead of refuting it when you're backed into a corner. You should maybe re-examine that, because nobody really buys it. You might as well be trying to end your conversations with LOL NO U

AND I'M SAYING THIS AS ANOTHER REPUBLICAN!!!!

[Tgo01]

weren't you one of the people in that 80 page thread foaming at the mouth that HILLARY IS GOING TO JAIL!!!!! HILLARY IS GOING TO JAIL!!!!

No.


Also, I notice you call anything a strawman argument instead of refuting it when you're backed into a corner.

Yes, I call something a strawman argument instead of refuting it because that's what you do. Why would I "refute" a strawman argument? There is nothing to refute because a strawman argument means the person is misrepresenting my argument.


You should maybe re-examine that, because nobody really buys it. You might as well be trying to end your conversations with LOL NO U

This is dumb. You're dumb.

[Stumplicker]

Yes, I call something a strawman argument instead of refuting it because that's what you do. Why would I "refute" a strawman argument? There is nothing to refute because a strawman argument means the person is misrepresenting my argument.


What I'm saying is that either:

A) You've never said anything that was wrong ever.

or

B) When you are wrong, you instead call whatever you're proven wrong about a strawman argument instead of admitting that you're wrong.


Man up. Admit your faults. We all have them. Zero people are fooled by the smokescreen.

[Tgo01]

What I'm saying is that either:

A) You've never said anything that was wrong ever.

That's a fair assessment, yes.


B) When you are wrong, you instead call whatever you're proven wrong about a strawman argument instead of admitting that you're wrong.

Dude, why are you choosing this hill to die on? The guy said I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. That is flat out false. You can go back and read our discussion yourself. It's right there written in plain English. I didn't go back and edit my posts to obfuscate that I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. He is just flat out wrong, hence why I called it a strawman, because that's literally what a strawman is.


Man up. Admit your faults. We all have them. Zero people are fooled by the smokescreen.

Why are you such a rapist? Remember that one time you admitted to being a rapist? Just man up, we all have faults. Maybe you should turn yourself into the police, be a man.

[Stumplicker]

That's a fair assessment, yes.



Dude, why are you choosing this hill to die on? The guy said I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. That is flat out false. You can go back and read our discussion yourself. It's right there written in plain English. I didn't go back and edit my posts to obfuscate that I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. He is just flat out wrong, hence why I called it a strawman, because that's literally what a strawman is.



Why are you such a rapist? Remember that one time you admitted to being a rapist? Just man up, we all have faults. Maybe you should turn yourself into the police, be a man.

Frankly because it's 9:30 in the morning and it's something that usually bugs me about your posts, just not enough to mention unless it's 9:30 in the morning. I'm 100% inclined to believe that was your intent to call him a democrat or liberal as you think is some sort of insult because you've demonstrated a consistent propensity to call me a RINO or a Liberal in the same manner. A quick forum search produces much the same for others. It's not even a little stretch to suggest that you might have meant it in an insulting manner.

And on that same track, a quick search for you and "straw man" produces 3 pages worth of posts where you call things straw man arguments, although I'll admit that one or two were about you talking about a man on a skateboard who moved through blowing through a straw. "strawman" by you produces another 2 pages of results.

What I'm saying is: Learn a new word. When posed with an argument counter to your own viewpoint, your eyes seem to glaze over and you just call it a strawman and move on regardless of content. I'm sure some of them were straw man arguments. But goddamn - not everything is.

[Parkbandit]

Frankly because it's 9:30 in the morning and it's something that usually bugs me about your posts, just not enough to mention unless it's 9:30 in the morning. I'm 100% inclined to believe that was your intent to call him a democrat or liberal as you think is some sort of insult because you've demonstrated a consistent propensity to call me a RINO or a Liberal in the same manner. A quick forum search produces much the same for others. It's not even a little stretch to suggest that you might have meant it in an insulting manner.

And on that same track, a quick search for you and "straw man" produces 3 pages worth of posts where you call things straw man arguments, although I'll admit that one or two were about you talking about a man on a skateboard who moved through blowing through a straw. "strawman" by you produces another 2 pages of results.

What I'm saying is: Learn a new word. When posed with an argument counter to your own viewpoint, your eyes seem to glaze over and you just call it a strawman and move on regardless of content. I'm sure some of them were straw man arguments. But goddamn - not everything is.

Time to make a new name here.. you've wasted this one with your typical stupidity.

[Tgo01]

I'm 100% inclined to believe that was your intent to call him a democrat or liberal as you think is some sort of insult because you've demonstrated a consistent propensity to call me a RINO or a Liberal in the same manner.

Well this is rich. "I recognize you didn't actually call him a rabid lunatic Democrat, but I'm inclined to believe it was your intent. So own up to your mistakes already."

Are you being for real right now? Are you drunk?


And on that same track, a quick search for you and "straw man" produces 3 pages worth of posts where you call things straw man arguments

Yes, a lot of people make strawman arguments. I call people out on it when they do. What's your fucking point? I also call out time4fun whenever she engages in her racist and sexist bullshit, which is often. Should I stop calling her out on her racist and sexist bullshit because Stumplicker doesn't like me calling out the shit people do?


What I'm saying is: Learn a new word.

Sure, just for you Stumplicker I'll change the English language and make up new words to describe the asinine behavior of people I come across just so I don't sound repetitive. Would that help you get through the day a bit easier?


When posed with an argument counter to your own viewpoint, your eyes seem to glaze over and you just call it a strawman and move on regardless of content.

Is this kind of like your bullshit of "I know you didn't say this, but I'm inclined to believe it was your intent to say it"?

I just want to know when you're going to seek help for being a rapist?

[Stumplicker]

Well this is rich. "I recognize you didn't actually call him a rabid lunatic Democrat, but I'm inclined to believe it was your intent. So own up to your mistakes already."


Yes, this is accurate. I fully believe as he did that it was your intent, but I have no grounds for accusation on it because you didn't actually say that. You'll notice that the previous sentence is akin to me acquiescing a point: and I didn't even call you a rapist, or dumb, or a democrat. It's how an adult might form sentences when they speak to another adult if they expect to be part of society. You should probably look into that.



Yes, a lot of people make strawman arguments. I call people out on it when they do. What's your fucking point? I also call out time4fun whenever she engages in her racist and sexist bullshit, which is often. Should I stop calling her out on her racist and sexist bullshit because Stumplicker doesn't like me calling out the shit people do?


My point restated, since you asked, is that you say it enough that you're basically crying wolf. Not every argument that you don't agree with is a straw man argument, and calling everything a straw man argument is not the "get out of this debate free and also 100% right" card that you seem to think it is.



Sure, just for you Stumplicker I'll change the English language and make up new words to describe the asinine behavior of people I come across just so I don't sound repetitive. Would that help you get through the day a bit easier?


It has no bearing on me, but it may help people take what you say a little more seriously in the future.



I just want to know when you're going to seek help for being a rapist?
See the first section of this post.

[Tgo01]

Yes, this is accurate. I fully believe as he did that it was your intent, but I have no grounds for accusation on it because you didn't actually say that.

I literally lost brain cells reading this mental retardation. And you say I'm never wrong about something! You are now literally just making shit up in some weird attempt to be right.

"Yeah I see the math question is 2 + 2 and I answered 5, but I fully believe your intent was to write the question as 2 + 3 so I'm right." This is you right now. Stop being retarded.


calling everything a straw man argument is not the "get out of this debate free and also 100% right" card that you seem to think it is.

See, THIS IS A FUCKING STRAWMAN. No where have I ever stated this or even implied it. Me calling out people's bullshit isn't a "Oh I just won this argument! YAY ME!" It's a "Don't misrepresent my argument so YOU can win. Try again, but this time without the strawman." I don't see why this is such a difficult concept for you. Why should I engage in someone's complete and utter bullshit?


See the first section of this post.

Well you admitted to being a rapist and it's kind of disgusting that a rapist hangs out in our community, so when you are going to seek help so you'll stop being a rapist?

[Archigeek]

That's a fair assessment, yes.



Dude, why are you choosing this hill to die on? The guy said I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. That is flat out false. You can go back and read our discussion yourself. It's right there written in plain English. I didn't go back and edit my posts to obfuscate that I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. He is just flat out wrong, hence why I called it a strawman, because that's literally what a strawman is.

I think the point he's trying to make is that you don't seem to know what a strawman is. Someone contesting your ad hominem attack is not making a strawman argument. A strawman argument is basically when someone argues a point that wasn't made. The term is not generally used to describe a person refuting an insult, since presumably, (and certainly in your case) the insult was actually made. Here are a few examples of strawman arguments from Wikipedia:


Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have...) unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants.

In a 1977 appeal of a U.S. bank robbery conviction, a prosecuting attorney said in his closing argument:[10]

I submit to you that if you can't take this evidence and find these defendants guilty on this evidence then we might as well open all the banks and say, "Come on and get the money, boys," because we'll never be able to convict them.

This was a straw man designed to alarm the appeal judges; the chance that the precedent set by one case would literally make it impossible to convict any bank robbers is remote.

An example often given of a straw man is US President Richard Nixon's 1952 "Checkers speech".[11][12] When campaigning for vice president in 1952, Nixon was accused of having illegally appropriated $18,000 in campaign funds for his personal use. In a televised response, he spoke about another gift, a dog he had been given by a supporter:[11][12]

It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, six years old, named it Checkers. And, you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that, regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.

This was a straw man response; his critics had never criticized the dog as a gift or suggested he return it. This argument was successful at distracting many people from the funds, and portraying his critics as nitpicking and heartless. Nixon received an outpouring of public support and remained on the ticket. He and Eisenhower were elected by a landslide.

TLDR: a response to your ad hominem attack is not by itself a change in the subject (strawman), since you're the one who made the ad hominem attack.

Also: Donald Trump is a lying narcissist, with a complete lack of empathy.

[Ashliana]

Tgo's general strategy is to argue in such bad faith that the other party gets exasperated to the point where they do make a mistake, which he'll seize upon and pretend nothing else was ever said, or for the person to just throw their hands up and he'll pretend he "won" the argument. He's been doing it for years.

Honestly, I'm not sure whether or not it's a deliberate strategy to troll, or to convince himself he's "winning," or because his reasoning is just so poor because that's how his mind actually works. The motivation behind it doesn't really matter.

[Tgo01]

A strawman argument is basically when someone argues a point that wasn't made.

And I never called him a rabid lunatic Democrat like he said I did. So how am I misusing the term "strawman"? Oh that's right, I'm not. But do go on how he was just "refuting" my "ad hominem" attack.


TLDR: a response to your ad hominem attack is not by itself a change in the subject (strawman), since you're the one who made the ad hominem attack.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. I did not engage in an "ad hominem" attack on him, nor did he "refute" my ad hominem attack.

Here is what I said:


Being a Republican doesn't give your argument of why you hate Trump any more weight than your typical rabid lunatic Democrat.

That's my point. No ad hominem attack in there at all! I simply stated that him being a Republican does not give his argument anymore weight than when your typical rabid lunatic Democrat (ie you) makes the same argument.

He replied with:


I fail to see how my interest in this automatically makes me a rabid lunatic Democrat.

Where did I say he was a rabid lunatic Democrat? Do you understand simple English, Archigeek? Do you understand why I called this a strawman now?

My point: You being a Republican does not give your criticism of Trump anymore validity than a Democrat making the same argument.
Him: Why you calling me a Democrat?
Me: I never said you were a Democrat.
Stumplicker: I think your intent was to call him a Democrat, thus you did, thus you need to recognize when you're wrong.
Archigeek: You really don't understand what a strawman is, really you don't. You attacked him personally rather than attacking his argument, then called his refutation of your attack a strawman.
Me: I'm surrounded by mental midgets.

[Archigeek]

I think comparing someone to a lunatic, (republican or democrat) can reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem attack. Whether or not he was correct doesn't make his response a strawman. You're parsing it pretty fine by claiming that you weren't calling him a lunatic, you were only comparing him to a lunatic.

[Tgo01]

I think comparing someone to a lunatic, (republican or democrat) can reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.

Again, absolute fucking bullshit. I did not compare him to anyone. Jesus. What is wrong with you people today?


Whether or not he was correct doesn't make his response a strawman.

"Whether or not he portrayed your argument correctly does not make his response a strawman."

Unfuckingbelievable.


You're parsing it pretty fine by claiming that you weren't calling him a lunatic, you were only comparing him to a lunatic.

See? STRAWMAN.

I did not compare him to a lunatic nor did I say I compared him to a lunatic. I said him being a Republican does not give his argument more validity than a Democrat lunatic.

If I said his argument does not have more validity than a black man's argument does that mean I'm comparing him to a black man? Of course not. I'm simply stating that his argument isn't bolstered by him being white, as in that fact has nothing to do with the argument he is presenting.

Stop being stupid for the sake of being stupid.

[Ashliana]

DUMB

:rofl:

[Wrathbringer]

:rofl:

Stop with the rofl emoji. I get that you probably just figured it out but show some restraint please.

[Gelston]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeuy3Q7MVYg

[Ashliana]

Stop with the rofl emoji. I get that you probably just figured it out but show some restraint please.

:rofl:

I'll stop as soon as you stop hopping in to threads merely to call people "retarded."

And yes, I'm aware your inevitable reply is going to be "lol @ your rep." I'm sure it will be very witty this time.

[hello]

:rofl:

I'll stop as soon as you stop hopping in to threads merely to call people "retarded."

And yes, I'm aware your inevitable reply is going to be "lol @ your rep." I'm sure it will be very witty this time.

I'm 99.9% certain Wrathbringer is an overweight woman who can't get a date to save herself and is now projecting her bitterness on this board.

[Wrathbringer]

:rofl:

I'll stop as soon as you stop hopping in to threads merely to call people "retarded."

And yes, I'm aware your inevitable reply is going to be "lol @ your rep." I'm sure it will be very witty this time.

Lol @ your rep

[Ashliana]

Lol @ your rep

:rofl:

:clap:

[hello]

Lol @ your rep

Rep on some shitty forum for a long passed 80's text based MUD is the only thing holding your fragile ego together. #SAD

[Astray]

Emotes

It's actually pretty bad.

[Latrinsorm]

The guy said I called him a rabid lunatic Democrat. That is flat out false.lol

[Tgo01]

lol

Exactly.

To see an example of me actually calling a "Republican" a rabid lunatic Democrat look no further than here:


You're a Democrat lunatic.

[Bekke]

Lordy, I hope there are tapes.