Honest question for Democrats regarding your claim that Trump is "fascist" or a "dictator" (global warming, lawyer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, its a he said - she said and only one of the people in question has been known to draw on weather maps in sharpie to try to "prove himself right".
Basically, there is a credibility problem. And not with Stormy.
Sorry, its a he said - she said and only one of the people in question has been known to draw on weather maps in sharpie to try to "prove himself right".
Basically, there is a credibility problem. And not with Stormy.
seriously? You're going to go THERE????
Read the post from the stormy thread. There were big reasons to question her credibility regarding that story. Something I didn't even mention in the post--as far as I can find out, after the life of her daughter was supposedly directly threatened, she never went to police or FBI. Instead she went to the press.
I would add--I'm no Trump supporter. Now back to our regularly scheduled denial.
Read the post from the stormy thread. There were big reasons to question her credibility regarding that story. Something I didn't even mention in the post--as far as I can find out, after the life of her daughter was supposedly directly threatened, she never went to police or FBI. Instead she went to the press.
I would add--I'm no Trump supporter. Now back to our regularly scheduled denial.
Yea, seriously lets go there. Here is your post from the other page with my responses:
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
I couldn't recommend the book except for those with special interest. I found it to drag at times, and I question her credibility. I think she could have made it shorter, and her ghost-writer didn't do her any favors.
Here you attempt to set up the frame of the discussion with usage of the "poisoning the well fallacy":
Stormy - book was bad < Irrelevant, subjective opinion
Maybe Someone else wrote it < Irrelevant, conjecture
TLDR < Irrelevant, also the lazy troll favorite
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
I wanted to mention that in her book, Stormy recounts an incident where she was supposedly threatened by a goon sent by Trump. She was outside her women's exercise class fiddling with her daughters car seat when she noticed a male who appeared lost. She figured he was someone's husband there to pick up his wife. But he approached her from behind. She says he was wearing '300 dollar jeans' and an expensive looking hoody.
He said (paraphrase) 'nice-looking daughter you have there. Be a shame if something happened to her,' and then 'Leave Mr. Trump alone,' and then skedaddled.
Ok there is the "she said" part of the he said/she said incident
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
This to me strains credulity. What self-respecting hired goon wearing $300 jeans would be dumb enough to make such an overt threat in this day and age when so much in public is video-recorded?
Your opinion about a random persons taste in clothes along with your belief as to the dressing habits of self-respecting goons is irrelevant.
The incident WASNT video recorded obviously so it could also be that he just knew the right place/time to approach her. Which you would expect someone hired to threaten someone to take into account. Not really that hard, follow someone a couple days learn their routine check the places out that they go that would be a good spot to approach them then do it. A fitness center parking lot fits perfectly into that as well, people usually go to fitness centers at standard hours and its ez to scope out the parking lot to identify cameras. Literally anyone could do this with a bit of time investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
And he wouldn't invoke Trump's name. Directly invoking Trump would risk dragging Trump into a potential investigation.
So hows that work? "Hey! You! There is a guy somewhere that you maybe knew once that doesn't want you to say stuff about that thing you did that one time!"
Not how threats work. A threat needs an appropriate context of what you are being threatened to NOT do. In this case Trump would be required for the context of the threat to make sense, sense the threat was directly related to not disclosing the sexual relationship with Mr. Trump. The same Mr. Trump who has lied over the course of this incident likely hundreds if not thousands of times about it... so wait why is he getting the benefit of the doubt again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
Finally, the version she told '60 minutes' does not square with the version in her book. In the book the guy says 'Mr. Trump,' while in '60 minutes' it's just 'Trump.' There are other discrepancies.
This is pathetically pedantic. I have told many stories personally where I may use different pronouns just depending on where I am at in the conversation or the flow of a sentence. Also, irrelevant regarding credibility. Credibility is damaged when repeated tellings factually contradict each other, not when someone uses a different pronoun. If there are other "discrepancies" between the tellings as you say, you should have led with them instead of this weak semantic quibbling nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
And why did she not have video security in her $80,000 Escalade? She's a film director, so it's not like the tech was beyond her pretty little head.
Irrelevant to credibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
She says that once her troubles with Trump started, she hired two bodyguards (one named Travis, lol), and traveled with them everywhere.
Ok, so? Irrelevant to credibility. Actually no, never mind, if she can get corroboration from the body guards that would actually be credibility points in her favor.
I do agree that the name Travis is JUST HILARIOUS though. Every time I see a guy named Travis I just start lol'ing and lol'ing, know what i'm sayin'?
So we are left with a he said/she said where only one of the parties has publicly lied thousands of times. Including many times about other details of the incident in question. So with that said, and given my internal belief is not a court of law, my personal judgement will go with the person who hasn't publicly and consistently lied about the topic over and over since its inception - thx.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 09-06-2019 at 04:20 PM..
Yea, seriously lets go there. Here is your post from the other page with my responses:
Here you attempt to set up the frame of the discussion with usage of the "poisoning the well fallacy":
Stormy - book was bad < Irrelevant, subjective opinion
Maybe Someone else wrote it < Irrelevant, conjecture
TLDR < Irrelevant, also the lazy troll favorite
Ok there is the "she said" part of the he said/she said incident
Your opinion about a random persons taste in clothes along with your belief as to the dressing habits of self-respecting goons is irrelevant.
The incident WASNT video recorded obviously so it could also be that he just knew the right place/time to approach her. Which you would expect someone hired to threaten someone to take into account. Not really that hard, follow someone a couple days learn their routine check the places out that they go that would be a good spot to approach them then do it. A fitness center parking lot fits perfectly into that as well, people usually go to fitness centers at standard hours and its ez to scope out the parking lot to identify cameras. Literally anyone could do this with a bit of time investment.
So hows that work? "Hey! You! There is a guy somewhere that you maybe knew once that doesn't want you to say stuff about that thing you did that one time!"
Not how threats work. A threat needs an appropriate context of what you are being threatened to NOT do. In this case Trump would be required for the context of the threat to make sense, sense the threat was directly related to not disclosing the sexual relationship with Mr. Trump. The same Mr. Trump who has lied over the course of this incident likely hundreds if not thousands of times about it... so wait why is he getting the benefit of the doubt again?
This is pathetically pedantic. I have told many stories personally where I may use different pronouns just depending on where I am at in the conversation or the flow of a sentence. Also, irrelevant regarding credibility. Credibility is damaged when repeated tellings factually contradict each other, not when someone uses a different pronoun.
Irrelevant to credibility
Ok, so? Irrelevant to credibility. Actually no, never mind, if she can get corroboration from the body guards that would actually be credibility points in her favor.
I do agree that the name Travis is JUST HILARIOUS though. Every time I see a guy named Travis I just start lol'ing and lol'ing, know what i'm sayin'?
So we are left with a he said/she said where only one of the parties has publicly lied thousands of times. Including many times about other details of the incident in question. So with that said, and given my internal belief is not a court of law, my personal judgement will go with the person who hasn't publicly and consistently lied about the topic over and over since its inception - thx.
Wow, you don't just double down on denial, you n-tuple down!
You forget that the burden of proof is on the accuser. And she had no proof. NONE. Trump's credibility is actually irrelevant here. She's the one making the accusation/claim, so it is her credibility that would matter. Trump could be Satan himself, and it would not make her claim true. Likewise, Trump could be the 2nd coming of Jesus, and it would not make her claim false. Trump's cred is irrelevant.
Wow, you don't just double down on denial, you n-tuple down!
I mean that is one way you can go when you don't have an argument. To this I say: "Nuh Uh!"- should be equally as good as your "Yea huh!" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
You forget that the burden of proof is on the accuser. And she had no proof. NONE. Trump's credibility is actually irrelevant here. She's the one making the accusation/claim, so it is her credibility that would matter. Trump could be Satan himself, and it would not make her claim true. Likewise, Trump could be the 2nd coming of Jesus, and it would not make her claim false. Trump's cred is irrelevant.
The burden of proof is on the accuser in a court of law. Which this isn't. This is individual people forming subjective opinions about who they believe to be more credible in a he said/she said situation, which is a different story entirely, and one in which the credibility of both parties is absolutely intrinsically relevant. Or at least it should be if a logical thought process is followed.
If I have 2 friends, one that lies all the time about big and little things and one that has been consistently truthful, and they are both telling me obviously contradictory things, I am going with the person who doesn't have a history of lying all the time.
Does that mean if the person I know to be generally truthful accuses the liar of a crime but does not have the evidence to prove it, that the liar should automatically go to jail?
No, to take legal action against the person requires some form of real evidence.
But would I would take their accusations into account going forward in my personal dealings with the liar?
Absolutely, 100% - anyone who wouldn't is a fool.
Do you care to provide any more reasons you think Stormy's story is not credible now?
Since you didn't provide any actual valid reasons in the quoted post you linked earlier, maybe we can take a mulligan.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 09-06-2019 at 04:53 PM..
Case in point, Trump is the only Republican president (with Reagan being the only slight exception) in my lifetime that doesn't roll over and cower to the vicious media attacks that every Republican president or Republican presidential candidate constantly faces from Democrats and the liberal mainstream media. He's the only Republican politician that I know of to aggressively use the left's playbook and win at all costs tactics against them and the left (both the Democratic party and the liberal mass media) absolutely hates him for it. The left is so use to Republicans not fighting back that Trump's aggressive use of their own smear tactics only seems shocking because they are so use to getting away with using the same disgusting political rhetoric and demagoguery they claim Trump uses they don't know how to react.
.
Spot on. He has made a fool out of the media, which needed to happen. CNN is the enemy of the people, it's obvious they hate the United States.
Every time he calls bs fake news out I laugh out loud.
This is my personal favorite. Icing on the cake is that was Trump told him to FO about the Russian Hoax when Acosta completely changed the subject to that. We all know how the Muellar Report turned out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdFe-LmFRV8
Are the following actions or policies those you'd associate with a "fascist" or a "dictator"?
1) Passing a tax cut that resulted in all U.S. citizens keeping more of their own money (The limit on how much you can deduct from state taxes only affects a few high tax states so that is on those particular states. Ironically, the tax plan actually encourages those states to (gasp)....lower state income tax levels furthering lowering the overall tax burden for citizens of those states)
2) Support of policies that strengthen the right of all law abiding U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms. No doubt a top priority of all "fascist dictators"
3) Prison reform that lowers the severity of penalties and jail terms for non violent drug offenders and helps improve their future job prospects making it easier for them to rejoin society. A law that btw just happens to disproportionately help minority populations that have historically been discriminated against the most when it comes to sentencing and incarceration.
4) Re-negotiating trade deals with the goal of increasing manufacturing in the U.S. to hopefully boost employment opportunities for all U.S. citizens.
5) Imposing a travel ban from countries where government records on those citizens is unreliable. A travel ban very similar to the one with practically the same countries involved that the previous president imposed.
6) A policy to do everything legally and constitutionally allowed to secure our borders to protect both the safety and the economic prospects of legal U.S. citizens. A policy that would ultimately reduce the strain on social services saving the U.S. taxpayer tens of billions of dollars that is a annually spent on social services for people who broke the rules by entering the country illegally.
7) A policy and effort to outlaw late term, third trimester abortion with the exception of rape, incest, or threat to the life of a mother. I suppose some could stretch and twist this one into a "fascist" move but the fully formed (for all practical purposes) unborn child would probably beg to differ not to mention the hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens that value the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness the soon to be child is entitled to. It may be rare that a perfectly normal pregnancy is aborted in the third trimester but it isn't unreasonable or "fascist" to simply require that one's right to choose is limited to the first 6 months of a pregnancy.
8) Support of a policy that strengthens the 1st Amendment and every U.S. citizen's right to free speech as well as the press's right to a free press regardless of how unpopular or how "hateful" (i.e. "hate speech") that speech may be.
That's just to name a few. Which of these policies either passed or supported by President Trump make him a "fascist" or a "dictator"? What other policies not mentioned that he has either passed into law or supports makes him a "fascist" or a "dictator"? Is it possible that maybe he isn't really a "fascist" or a "dictator" and you just hate the man's guts or are you honestly concerned that he is on his way to becoming another murderous dictator and the second coming of Hitler?
I mean that is one way you can go when you don't have an argument. To this I say: "Nuh Uh!"- should be equally as good as your "Yea huh!" here.
Physician, heal thyself.
Quote:
The burden of proof is on the accuser in a court of law. Which this isn't....
'Burden of proof on the accuser' is a general principle that should apply in or out of court. For example, it is written into virtually all union CBAs as the 'just cause' provision. If the employer makes an allegation against an employee, the burden of proof is on the employer.
If 5-yr-old Johnny accuses 6-yr-old Jamie of taking his lunch money, the school principle is going to want some evidence, such as a witness, from Johnny, before sending Jamie to detention.
It's just another way of saying 'innocent until proven guilty,' which at one time this was considered a major tenet of liberalism. Those days seem to be gone.
Quote:
Do you care to provide any more reasons you think Stormy's story is not credible now?
Since you didn't provide any actual valid reasons in the quoted post you linked earlier, maybe we can take a mulligan.
'Burden of proof on the accuser' is a general principle that should apply in or out of court. For example, it is written into virtually all union CBAs as the 'just cause' provision. If the employer makes an allegation against an employee, the burden of proof is on the employer.
If 5-yr-old Johnny accuses 6-yr-old Jamie of taking his lunch money, the school principle is going to want some evidence, such as a witness, from Johnny, before sending Jamie to detention.
It's just another way of saying 'innocent until proven guilty,' which at one time this was considered a major tenet of liberalism. Those days seem to be gone.
Sure sure
You know 2 people, one of them is a scoundrel that has lied to you the whole time you have known them and the other has been generally truthful.
The generally truthful one tells you that last weekend the liar touched their kid inappropriately when they were drunk one night and so they threw the liar out of their house and told them never to come back. They can't prove it, they don't have physical evidence and they know they will not be able to press charges.
So you, paragon of "innocence until proven guilty in ALL SCENARIOS ALL THE TIME" will happily hire on the known liar to babysit your kids now yea? Yea f'ing right - that is not how human relationships or character judgement works - sorry.
To take your scenario: Should Jamie get detention with no proof? Nope. But if little Johnny is best buds with lil' Mikey, and he tells em to watch out for Jamie cause he will take your lunch money, then lil' Mikey is a FOOL if he does not take that information into account when dealing with Jamie.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 09-06-2019 at 05:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
