Archive

Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

  • QuakerOats
    His appointments are excellent; the roll-back of the regulatory onslaught and bureaucratic enslavement cannot occur soon enough.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1852085 wrote:His appointments are excellent; the roll-back of the regulatory onslaught and bureaucratic enslavement cannot occur soon enough.
    His appointments have been muddled in more controversy and scandal than any cabinet I can remember (admittedly, that only goes back to Reagan). They've not been excellent. They've been ineffective and in some cases dismissed early because of how poor a choice they were.

    And as of yet, he's not rolled anything back.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1852084 wrote:I'm not being semantic. I'm merely holding you to the same standard of fact-based reason that you appear inclined to holding others to. You've been a classic example of hypocrisy in this thread.

    And let me know when you also wish to contribute positively to this conversation, as the sorts of fallacies and incendiary sensationalism you've been pitching thus far is hardly what I'd call positive contribution to a conversation.
    If I say "The sky is blue", I'm sure you would come tell me that "Hey, the sky is also sometimes black and sometimes gray!' It's not a meaningful contribution to this thread even if it gets your intellectual jollies off.

    I think you are having trouble differentiating between fact and opinion. I do appreciate the insinuation that everything I post is fact but it's not. My posts are fact based opinion with a little hyperbole to emphasize the seriousness and the frustration I have with those who ignore reality.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1852090 wrote:If I say "The sky is blue", I'm sure you would come tell me that "Hey, the sky is also sometimes black and sometimes gray!' It's not a meaningful contribution to this thread even if it gets your intellectual jollies off.

    I think you are having trouble differentiating between fact and opinion. I do appreciate the insinuation that everything I post is fact but it's not. My posts are fact based opinion with a little hyperbole to emphasize the seriousness and the frustration I have with those who ignore reality.
    I wouldn't argue with you at all if you merely held yourself to the same standards to which you're holding everyone else.

    I disagree more with others than I do with you, but I end up voicing it less, because they don't claim the corner market on facts and reason, and then proceed to not use those things.

    Suggesting that a person either opposes Trump or puts party over country is not an opinion. It is a fact claim. It's simply incorrect.

    Calling something a "travesty" is subjective if it's used properly (which it wasn't). It would constitute opinion.

    Using the term "infect" in regard to someone taking office is hyperbole.

    I'm clear on the difference between fact an opinion. Opinions are, at the end of the day, subjective. As such, it seems that you don't really understand the difference between a fact and opinion, given that you seem to think your opinions are factually informed. Something factually informed is not subjective, even if it is not held with 100% certainty. That's what's called a "belief," which is not the same as an opinion. You don't get to toss out a fact claim or belief and then avoid scrutiny by calling it an opinion.

    Moreover, I haven't assumed that everything you say is fact. However, if you use the criticism of others that they're not using facts or reason in their claims, then you should probably be sure you are using it, yourself.

    You want to call out others on the absence of facts to support their claims (not opinions)? That's fine. Just make sure you're holding your own claims to the same standard.

    You want to chastise those who ignore reality? Great. Reality is based in logic, so if you wish to avoid hypocrisy, try to limit the logical fallacies you, yourself, use ... particularly since they don't belong in fact claims, beliefs, or opinions.
  • QuakerOats
    O-Trap;1852088 wrote:His appointments have been muddled in more controversy and scandal than any cabinet I can remember (admittedly, that only goes back to Reagan). They've not been excellent. They've been ineffective and in some cases dismissed early because of how poor a choice they were.

    And as of yet, he's not rolled anything back.
    They have rolled back a shitload of reg's already ...........as has congress through CRA. Not sure where you've been. The appointments are some of the best in history; we actually have real people who have actually run businesses, employed people, and made a real living ....................the complete opposite of the empty suit academians, lawyers and political hacks we just spent 8 years with.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1852096 wrote:I wouldn't argue with you at all if you merely held yourself to the same standards to which you're holding everyone else.

    I disagree more with others than I do with you, but I end up voicing it less, because they don't claim the corner market on facts and reason, and then proceed to not use those things.

    Suggesting that a person either opposes Trump or puts party over country is not an opinion. It is a fact claim. It's simply incorrect.

    Calling something a "travesty" is subjective if it's used properly (which it wasn't). It would constitute opinion.

    Using the term "infect" in regard to someone taking office is hyperbole.

    I'm clear on the difference between fact an opinion. Opinions are, at the end of the day, subjective. As such, it seems that you don't really understand the difference between a fact and opinion, given that you seem to think your opinions are factually informed. Something factually informed is not subjective, even if it is not held with 100% certainty. That's what's called a "belief," which is not the same as an opinion. You don't get to toss out a fact claim or belief and then avoid scrutiny by calling it an opinion.

    Moreover, I haven't assumed that everything you say is fact. However, if you use the criticism of others that they're not using facts or reason in their claims, then you should probably be sure you are using it, yourself.

    You want to call out others on the absence of facts to support their claims (not opinions)? That's fine. Just make sure you're holding your own claims to the same standard.

    You want to chastise those who ignore reality? Great. Reality is based in logic, so if you wish to avoid hypocrisy, try to limit the logical fallacies you, yourself, use ... particularly since they don't belong in fact claims, beliefs, or opinions.
    This is a lot of verbiage that serves no purpose. I don't know what kind of response you are looking for but I thank god every day we have people like you who spend their every waking hour dissecting comments over the internet.

    I couldn't make it any more clear. I'm well aware which parts of my posts are fact and which parts are fact based opinion. Sorry you are unable to follow along.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1852104 wrote:This is a lot of verbiage that serves no purpose. I don't know what kind of response you are looking for but I thank god every day we have people like you who spend their every waking hour dissecting comments over the internet.

    I couldn't make it any more clear. I'm well aware which parts of my posts are fact and which parts are fact based opinion. Sorry you are unable to follow along.
    If you think it serves no purpose, then it's going over your head. Not your fault, I suppose.

    "Every waking hour" ... ah, more gross exaggeration. Well hell, I suppose that's par for the course. I'm not even on here every day.

    "Fact-based opinions" aren't things. I'm sorry you don't seem to know what an opinion is, but it actually explains a lot of your posts. It certainly explains the absence of a grasp in the sort of rationalism and logic that dictate reality.
  • sleeper
    O-Trap;1852105 wrote:If you think it serves no purpose, then it's going over your head. Not your fault, I suppose.

    "Every waking hour" ... ah, more gross exaggeration. Well hell, I suppose that's par for the course. I'm not even on here every day.

    "Fact-based opinions" aren't things. I'm sorry you don't seem to know what an opinion is, but it actually explains a lot of your posts. It certainly explains the absence of a grasp in the sort of rationalism and logic that dictate reality.
    You seem to have a hard on discussing how things are said rather than providing a meaningful contribution to any thread.

    And yes, "Fact-based opinions" are things. But again, I don't feel like derailing this thread with the rabbit hole that is o-trap. Serious question though, how often do you get off to Bill Clinton's famous line of "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is"?
  • superman
    It's been a while since I've seen someone take this kind of verbal beating. If this was a fight they would have stopped it.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1852109 wrote:You seem to have a hard on discussing how things are said rather than providing a meaningful contribution to any thread.

    And yes, "Fact-based opinions" are things. But again, I don't feel like derailing this thread with the rabbit hole that is o-trap. Serious question though, how often do you get off to Bill Clinton's famous line of "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is"?
    I don't have a hard time making meaningful contributions as long as others are doing the same. Let me know when you wish to begin. I'd be happy to have a meaningful conversation with you, but I'm not going to play chess with a monkey throwing feces.

    No, "fact-based opinions" are not things. Opinions are inherently subjective. If something is fact-based, it is not subjective. The two are, by their very definitions, mutually exclusive.

    How often do I get off to that? Eh, I'm more of a 'cogito ergo sum' kind of guy. Gives me a chubby every time.
  • fish82
    Haven't seen sleeper get worked this badly since election night. :laugh:
  • sleeper
    Trump fired Comey. The cover up continues...
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1852115 wrote:Trump fired Comey. The cover up continues...
    I'm not terribly surprised. Trump doesn't seem to me to be the sort of person who is willing or able to work with someone who is willing to paint him in any sort of light he doesn't like.
  • sleeper
    BTW this is now the 3rd person Trump has fired who was investigating him for misconduct. This is how a dictatorship starts.

    GOP supports and condones this.
  • iclfan2
    He also was a complete idiot. Liberals wanted him fired months ago, now appalled he's fired. Pick one.
    He also just botched testimony about wiener and his wife literally within the last week and the FBI had to write a letter clarifying. Supposedly he was asked to resign and didn't.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • isadore
    gosh a ruddies, firing Comey, Trump is an ungrateful bastard, firing the man who helped make him President. Of course now the Donald can now pick a man to shut down the FBI Russia probe.

    Shades of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.
  • Spock
    iclfan2;1852118 wrote:He also was a complete idiot. Liberals wanted him fired months ago, now appalled he's fired. Pick one.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    This for sure. Being fired for not doing your job should not bring an uproar from anyone.
  • Spock
    isadore;1852119 wrote:gosh a ruddies, firing Comey, Trump is an ungrateful bastard, firing the man who helped make him President. Of course now the Donald can now pick a man to shut down the FBI Russia probe.
    Or hire someone that will throw Obama and Hilary in prison.
  • fish82
    Risky move by Trump doing this without first getting permission from a random federal judge in Hawaii.
  • like_that
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1852071 wrote:Are you ever going to explain your political 180? This new progressive you has been on the scene for a little while now and there's been no explanation as to how your political leanings changed so dramatically in such a short period of time. What brought it on? Really - I'm curious. Your schtick on here used to be the money-making, chick-banging bro who hated poor people. Now you've become a champion of the downtrodden that hates Trump and the GOP. There must be a story there.
    Pretty simple explanation, IF he actually believes the type of shit he is currently spewing. I still mostly believe he is 100% trolling.

    He wasn't getting laid before, and now he finally found a steady girlfriend that will hook up with him. He probably likes her a lot and enjoys the sex, so therefore he adopts her views in order to maintain the relationship. There are MANY guys like this in DC. Sleeper is just another castrated member of this group of "men" who will do anything to get laid, because they couldn't pull it off by trying to be an alpha.

    Also the fact that he says he still hates poor people but emphasizes with them is laughable at best. Yeah, the guy who said "poor people are a product of poor choices," and still believed this up until November 8th, all of a sudden gained empathy for poor people on November 9th. Excuse me while I LMAO.
  • CenterBHSFan
    This is all very beautiful.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1852071 wrote:Are you ever going to explain your political 180? This new progressive you has been on the scene for a little while now and there's been no explanation as to how your political leanings changed so dramatically in such a short period of time. What brought it on? Really - I'm curious. Your schtick on here used to be the money-making, chick-banging bro who hated poor people. Now you've become a champion of the downtrodden that hates Trump and the GOP. There must be a story there.
    It's just that... Trump winning the Presidency broke him. The day after the election is when it started.
    sleeper;1823130 wrote:A couple of thoughts:

    1) One of the reasons that I(and most people) were so confident is the data was strongly in favor of Clinton from Day 1 and leading up to Monday night. If you work for a polling firm, you may be looking for a new job come today/end of the week. There's clearly a massive flaw in polling methodologies and I daresay it's like either that polling centers have become ultra partisan and/or a majority of people surveyed said Clinton but ended up notching Trump on the ballot due to fear of being ostracized for their choice. The question "How did we miss so badly" will be studied for decades and whoever can answer this question has an opportunity to seize the polling market and become stupid rich.

    2) I think the Democrat strategy of identity politics ultimately backfired right in their faces. Continuously blaming white people for all the world's problems and calling anyone who supports Trump(or conservative ideas) a racist/bigot/sexist really brought out white voters in mass against Clinton. The statistic was Clinton only got 51% of college educated white women, which is a demographic she was expected to absolutely shit stomp in giving Trump's comments/actions against women; what happened here? Where are all the people who voted for Obama?

    3) I'll give credit to Trump. He spent nowhere near the money Clinton did, defied odds to win the Republican nomination, defied odds to win the Presidency, and did it by being openly racist/sexist and a general asshole. This will be studied for decades.

    4) We're fucked.
    sleeper;1823327 wrote:I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    We have some of the most embarrassingly stupid people in this country who think Donald "Can't put together a sentence" Trump is going MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. What a freaking joke; these people are absolute trash. They make the troll trash on this forum look like gold bricks.

    President Trump. Say it 3 times fast and it makes you want to kill yourself.
  • sleeper
    Anyways, subpoena's issued in the Donald Trump collusion case to his associates. Comey fired hours after that news was leaked.

    But it's only because he started his job early. Incredible the lengths Republicans will go to defy reality and protect party over country.
  • sleeper
    like_that;1852125 wrote:Pretty simple explanation, IF he actually believes the type of shit he is currently spewing. I still mostly believe he is 100% trolling.

    He wasn't getting laid before, and now he finally found a steady girlfriend that will hook up with him. He probably likes her a lot and enjoys the sex, so therefore he adopts her views in order to maintain the relationship. There are MANY guys like this in DC. Sleeper is just another castrated member of this group of "men" who will do anything to get laid, because they couldn't pull it off by trying to be an alpha.

    Also the fact that he says he still hates poor people but emphasizes with them is laughable at best. Yeah, the guy who said "poor people are a product of poor choices," and still believed this up until November 8th, all of a sudden gained empathy for poor people on November 9th. Excuse me while I LMAO.
    Sorry you can't get laid bro. Try earning real money.
  • BoatShoes
    If you recall before the election pre-fake sjw sleeper still hated Trump. I imagine it is much more entertaining to troll conservative minded folks by seeing how far they will go to defend Trump/change the subject to Obama/dems/progs while holding Trump to muchblower standards, and all that.

    Basically Sleeper has always been an entertaining Troll and it has been a long 8 years since the GOP had the white house and trolling libs to defend poor people doesn't give ya that troll high when the new President trolls liberals day in and day out,