Poll for what is more important to you as a US citizen (US citizens vote only)

[Kittamaru]

[Reported] Typical trolling, Joe. YOU are the one who seemed to care; I simply said I did not care who created the thread, or the poll. It's humorous (to me) that the real trolls on this forum are consistently the ones who accuse others of being trolls. You are 'P/M-ing' to artificially improve your opinion of yourself. BTW: I agree, it is "nothing to get exited about" (Pls proofread your posts!!).

What IS important to me (and sad!) is that this started-out to be a science forum, and it seems to have degraded to be (primarily) a crybaby forum for those trolls who cannot tolerate the FACT that DJT ACTUALLY won the 2016 election.

1) The "report" function is not your personal "I disagree with this person" button... your last few reports have been in that same vein.
2) Political Science is a thing...
3) DJT won the Electoral College, yet lost the Popular Vote. He is also using the constitution as his own personal toilet paper and seems intent on severing ties with several of our closest allies... I think it is quite understandable why people are pissed with him. The fact that he is already viewed as "unfavorable" by a majority of the population is telling as well.

 

[karenmansker]

Oh, am I. You are sounding more and more like Trump all the time. If it's nothing to get excited about, then why did you get all excited about it? Remember

And just what would lead a rational person to your conclusion? You don't remember your post or are you just being dishonest like your idol Mr. Trump....all capital letters and underscored words? http://www.sciforums.com/threads/po...en-us-citizens-vote-only.158819/#post-3435338



Yes, I agree. So why are you calling other people trolls? You just said you reported me for trolling. Yes, I do find you humorous in a sad and tragic sort of way. You don't think Karen, you just react, just like your beloved Trump. You don't see the many contradictions in your posts.



LOL...

How do you know what this forum began as or know the history of this forum? You have been a member for only a few months. You know very little about this forum.

As I have repeatedly told you in this thread Karen, fact based rational discussion isn't trolling. You don't seem to understand the words you use. When have you ever posted a fact? When have you ever made a well reasoned post? You haven't. When you have been asked to back up your assertions with evidence you repeatedly fail to do so. In my last post I asked you to support your assertion with evidence and reason. And how do you respond? You respond with an ad hominem dump and you completely avoid answering the questions.

What makes you think people here are being cry babies? A reasoned discussion of fact isn't being a cry baby my dear Karen. People expressing their concerns about the POTUS isn't being a cry baby. For 8 years now right wingers with the courage to visit this site have been critical of Obama. I don't recall anyone here calling them cry babies as you have done.

When you accuse people here of being cry babies, all you are doing is mindlessly repeating a popular right wing meme. No one here has challenged the fact that Trump won the election. People are being critical of Trump and for good reasons, and they have facts. Now if you have facts and can make a reasoned argument to the contrary, please do so. But that is something you haven't been able to do thus far. And frankly, I doubt you have it in you. Prove me wrong Karen.

Write a well reasoned argument and back up your assertions with evidence. Don't mindlessly repeat right wing memes you picked up on Fox News or other right wing entertainment sources. Unfortunately for you and your right wing cohorts, facts do matter; reason still matters when you venture outside right wing echo chambers as you have done.

Joe, Your current response precisely makes my point! I seldom have to post on the forum because I easily recognize trolls' agendas and choose not to respond to them. Your posts continue to corroborate my findings. Incidentally, and for your enlightenment, I have been following this forum since its inception. Yes, you likely know more than I regarding the history and development of this forum because you are still allowed to post your biased opinions - without backing-up your non-fact-based assertions. BTW: For your further enlightenment, I don't drink or do drugs, but perhaps you do?

 

[Kittamaru]

karnmansker -

1) Reporting my post for "denigrating the US president" is continued misuse of the report function. Get it through your head - the US is not a dictatorship. Criticizing the sitting administration is not against the law, nor the forum rules. The report function is not to be used simply because you disagree with someone.
2) You obviously have some deep seated issue with Joe and other members of the forum population - my recommendation? Rather than attacking them (especially in such a vapid and impotent manner) simply put them on ignore.

 

[karenmansker]

1) The "report" function is not your personal "I disagree with this person" button... your last few reports have been in that same vein.
2) Political Science is a thing...
3) DJT won the Electoral College, yet lost the Popular Vote. He is also using the constitution as his own personal toilet paper and seems intent on severing ties with several of our closest allies... I think it is quite understandable why people are pissed with him. The fact that he is already viewed as "unfavorable" by a majority of the population is telling as well.

Kittmaru: I utilized the 'report' button to notify the admin/moderators that Mr. Pistole is not only insulting and impuning MY integrity, but also that of our POTUS. As a reminder, following are examples from his last post:

1) "are you just being dishonest like your idol Mr. Trump"
2) "Don't mindlessly repeat right wing memes you picked up on Fox News or other right wing entertainment sources"

I would appreciate your (Kittmaru) assisting in 'cleaning-up' this forum to trend it once again toward its original science basis. Otherwise I feel that it will end-up in the quagmire of well-intended, but since adultrated fora [adultrate def: to render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance, typically an inferior one.]

 

[joepistole]

Joe, Your current response precisely makes my point! I seldom have to post on the forum because I easily recognize trolls' agendas and choose not to respond to them. Your posts continue to corroborate my findings. Incidentally, and for your enlightenment, I have been following this forum since its inception. Yes, you likely know more than I regarding the history and development of this forum because you are still allowed to post your biased opinions - without backing-up your non-fact-based assertions. BTW: For your further enlightenment, I don't drink or do drugs, but perhaps you do?

Denial isn't a river in Egypt Karen. I've challenged you to make one single well reasoned argument backed up with facts. Where is it?

 

[Randwolf]

poor poll design!

[Reported] Typical trolling, Joe.
...
What IS important to me (and sad!) is that this started-out to be a science forum, and it seems to have degraded to be (primarily) a crybaby forum for those trolls who cannot tolerate the FACT that DJT ACTUALLY won the 2016 election.

I utilized the 'report' button to notify the admin/moderators that Mr. Pistole is not only insulting and impuning MY integrity, but also that of our POTUS.
...
I would appreciate your (Kittmaru) assisting in 'cleaning-up' this forum to trend it once again toward its original science basis. Otherwise I feel that it will end-up in the quagmire of well-intended, but since adultrated [adultrate def: to render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance, typically an inferior one.]

Very sorry to hear that you will be leaving us Karen. Naturally, you aren't expected to put up with such shortcomings from our staff and members.

I understand on the substantive issues too - sometimes you have to find an environment more conducive to alternative facts.

Happy trails...

 

[karenmansker]

Denial isn't a river in Egypt Karen. I've challenged you to make one single well reasoned argument backed up with facts. Where is it?

Thanks for the 'challenge' that you offered. How's this Joe? One single, well-reasoned argument: Joe Pistole seems (IMO) based on my evaluation, to be a biased, opinionated Sciforums member who finds it difficult to accept others' arguments. Back-up Facts: A qualitative review of his self-effacing attitude toward those who disagree with him!

BTW: I tire of your nonsense!

 

[Randwolf]

self-effacing

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

 

[youreyes]

. I think it is quite understandable why people are pissed with him.

Not "people are pissed at him", but liberal people are pissed at him, because they live in a pink rainbow land and miss the reality going on around them. We, the conservatives, we the electoral majority that chose Trump to be the president of United States put faith in our president and fully support him.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not "people are pissed at him", but liberal people are pissed at him, because they live in a pink rainbow land and miss the reality going on around them. We, the conservatives, we the electoral majority that chose Trump to be the president of United States put faith in our president and fully support him.

QQ: I quite agree with both of your comments

I don't agree with your agreement. LOL

At what point does political dialogue become other?

When USA troops continue to arrive in Poland as a part of the biggest USA deployment since the end of ww2. ......that's when....

Is the deployment of USA forces in Poland a political statement?
Is the illegal banning of visa holders from 7 nations a political statement?

 

[Kittamaru]

Not "people are pissed at him", but liberal people are pissed at him, because they live in a pink rainbow land and miss the reality going on around them.

Ironically, enough, even Republican supporters are pissed at him... and some Republican politicians...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...0e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.c3e340a530b8

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Monday that he was not briefed before the order was signed.

“I know that they said they talked with some staffers on the Hill — not in our office,” he said.

Asked if he was consulted in the drafting of the order, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said simply: “I wasn’t.”

Spokespeople for Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said the senators were not consulted at all about the order.

among others...

We, the conservatives, we the electoral majority that chose Trump to be the president of United States put faith in our president and fully support him.

Trump did not win the Majority. I cannot fathom why this is so difficult for you to comprehend... and of course you support one of the largest BIGOTS in the country; I am not surprised by this.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not "people are pissed at him", but liberal people are pissed at him, because they live in a pink rainbow land and miss the reality going on around them. We, the conservatives, we the electoral majority that chose Trump to be the president of United States put faith in our president and fully support him.

the world has nearly 8 billion people to it and the vast majority would be incredibly pissed off at him.. especially the Chinese, the Japanese, now the Australians and many others and you guessed it after the ongoing Poland deployment you could add Putin's Russia to the list as well...

And just think on it... Trump is the POTUS as troops and hardware arrive in Poland.... to defend against his best buddy Putin.... so go figure that one out...

"Ahhh! My brain hurts."... I hear from all the way over here...

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Kittmaru: I utilized the 'report' button to notify the admin/moderators that Mr. Pistole is not only insulting and impuning MY integrity, but also that of our POTUS. As a reminder, following are examples from his last post:

1) "are you just being dishonest like your idol Mr. Trump"
2) "Don't mindlessly repeat right wing memes you picked up on Fox News or other right wing entertainment sources"

I would appreciate your (Kittmaru) assisting in 'cleaning-up' this forum to trend it once again toward its original science basis. Otherwise I feel that it will end-up in the quagmire of well-intended, but since adultrated fora [adultrate def: to render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance, typically an inferior one.]

Please stop abusing the report function. Continuing to do so will only result in you being moderated for wasting staff time.

Request from other posters for you to back up your claims is not trolling. Refusing to do so is often considered trolling.

Nor is it against the rules to criticise a politician, even Trump. If you find the criticism of Trump offensive, then perhaps the politics sub-forum is probably not the best place for you to be posting in.

If you are incapable of discussing the thread's topic, then please cease and desist in participating in the thread. If you persist in, yes, trolling this thread and the members participating in the thread, you will face further moderation.

 

[karenmansker]

Not "people are pissed at him", but liberal people are pissed at him, because they live in a pink rainbow land and miss the reality going on around them. We, the conservatives, we the electoral majority that chose Trump to be the president of United States put faith in our president and fully support him.

Nice post, youreyes. You're quite observant!

Ironically, enough, even Republican supporters are pissed at him... and some Republican politicians...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...0e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.c3e340a530b8







among others...



Trump did not win the Majority. I cannot fathom why this is so difficult for you to comprehend... and of course you support one of the largest BIGOTS in the country; I am not surprised by this.

Mod Note

Kittmaru, Pls advise Bells of my decision tot unsubscribe! Thanks!



Please stop abusing the report function. Continuing to do so will only result in you being moderated for wasting staff time.

Request from other posters for you to back up your claims is not trolling. Refusing to do so is often considered trolling.

Nor is it against the rules to criticise a politician, even Trump. If you find the criticism of Trump offensive, then perhaps the politics sub-forum is probably not the best place for you to be posting in.

If you are incapable of discussing the thread's topic, then please cease and desist in participating in the thread. If you persist in, yes, trolling this thread and the members participating in the thread, you will face further moderation.

Mod Note



Please stop abusing the report function. Continuing to do so will only result in you being moderated for wasting staff time.

Request from other posters for you to back up your claims is not trolling. Refusing to do so is often considered trolling.

Nor is it against the rules to criticise a politician, even Trump. If you find the criticism of Trump offensive, then perhaps the politics sub-forum is probably not the best place for you to be posting in.

If you are incapable of discussing the thread's topic, then please cease and desist in participating in the thread. If you persist in, yes, trolling this thread and the members participating in the thread, you will face further moderation.

 

[joepistole]

Thanks for the 'challenge' that you offered. How's this Joe? One single, well-reasoned argument: Joe Pistole seems (IMO) based on my evaluation, to be a biased, opinionated Sciforums member who finds it difficult to accept others' arguments. Back-up Facts: A qualitative review of his self-effacing attitude toward those who disagree with him!

BTW: I tire of your nonsense!

LOL....

Where are your facts Karen? You can make outrageous assertions all day long. But if you venture outside the right wing echo chambers you inhabit, you need facts and reason. Sci-forums isn't a right wing echo chamber where facts and reason are not needed nor wanted and where illogical arguments are the only permitted posts.

Just because you don't like facts and reason it doesn't make them "nonsense" Karen.

 

[rpenner]

1) Reporting my post for "denigrating the US president" is continued misuse of the report function. Get it through your head - the US is not a dictatorship. Criticizing the sitting administration is not against the law, nor the forum rules. The report function is not to be used simply because you disagree with someone.

To be clear, the report was a grammatical mishmash: "Kittmaru is denigrating the reputation of our duly elected president!"

DJT's reputation is the various (some quite disparate) opinions of him held in the hearts of those who have heard of him. Pointing out that some opinions held about him are not fact-based doesn't seem like a unfair criticism. Nor is it especially disparaging since people who hold opinions about DJT which are counterfactual are precisely the group one would expect to not see a failure of an opinion to be fact-based to be pejorative. Respecting facts is a value, an ethos, that can't be communicated like information. However, the benefits of fact-based reasoning are so many, including a lessening of the stress caused by cognitive dissonance when counter-factual beliefs are repeatedly contradicted by events.

Richard M. Nixon was also a duly elected (twice!) president. The second (1972) election is still the strongest popular majority recorded since and an electoral landslide by any fact-based measure. Opinions formed about him changed rapidly with factual disclosures of events he wanted to keep secret and his violation of norms by firing those who were looking into the matter. So being duly-elected to any office is not insulation from pejorative changed of opinion and communication of opinions.

Finally, it is possible that Karen meant Kittamaru was defaming DJT when writing that DJT uses "the constitution as his own personal toilet paper" but that is hyperbole (I hope!) and opinion (not fact) protected by the First Amendment, and to the extent that it suggested that DJT seems not to recognize the Constitutional (and statutory) limits on Executive Branch power, seems well-supported by reliable sources, including DJT's expressed intentions.

Here is an official New York opinion on DJT, saying that DJT is not guilty of defamation since his critical messages are so habitually unreliable as fact, that no one should take them seriously:

Moreover, the immediate context of [DJT's] statements is the familiar back and forth between a political commentator and the subject of her criticism, and the larger context is the Republican presidential primary and Trump's regular use of Twitter to circulate his positions and skewer his opponents and others who criticize him, including journalists and media organizations whose coverage he finds objectionable. His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as "loser" or "total loser" or "totally biased loser," "dummy" or "dope" or "dumb," "zero/no credibility," "crazy" or "wacko," and "disaster," all deflecting serious consideration.
And yet, the context of a national presidential primary and a candidate's strategic and almost exclusive use of Twitter to advance his views arguably distinguish this case from those where heated rhetoric, with or without the use of social media, was held to constitute communications that cannot be taken seriously. These circumstances raise some concern that some may avoid liability by conveying positions in small Twitter parcels, as opposed to by doing so in a more formal and presumably actionable manner, bringing to mind the acknowledgment ofthe Court of Appeals that "[t]he publisher of a libel may not, of course, escape liability by veiling a calumny under artful or ambiguous phrases ...."

Source: Jacobus v Trump, 2017 NY Slip Op 30028(U) [*17-*18] (citations omitted)
Judge Barbara Jaffe in Cheryl Jacobus vs DJT et. al., New York Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 153252/16, January 9, 2017
pages 18-19 of http://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2017-2017-ny-slip-op-30028-u.pdf

That's a judge saying the then-president-elect was habitually full of it.

h/t https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/18/...e-against-donald-trump-and-the-trump-defense/

And as for the poorly designed poll, I voted "other" since I value the rule of law and continuity of government which provide a stable ground on which to plan the future. I value the rights enshrined in the Constitution and laws which give me some right to act upon my plans for the future. And I value the norms that say facts matter and "security" measures and declarations about refugees that aren't based on a well-rounded consideration of objective facts are nothing more than kabuki theater — lots of scary paint and staged poses, but no effective action. I certainly value freedom over mean-spirited theater which only pays lip service to security. The recent EO seems the second least well thought-out EO of the Trump administration. (The worst was the kill-two-regs-before-implementing-a-reg EO that seems completely unconnected to the law and reality of running a country not subject to the tyranny of unchecked arms of the Administration.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think it is quite clear that DJT's office is underpinned by the very constitution he is attempting to denigrate. With out the constitution his office is meaningless. With out his pledge to honor, protect and defend the constitution his office is meaningless.

To insult an office which is made meaningless by his own decisions is no crime...

he has failed to defend, protect the constitution by his insistence on over ruling it. With or with out a mandate given by popular vote.
A bit like his statement that he would only respect the election results...if he wins...he will only respect the constitution when it suits him to do so...

If he fails to honor his pledge then he is no POTUS regardless of popular support or apparent mandate.

 

[rpenner]

A bit like his statement that he would only respect the election results...if he wins...he will only respect the constitution when it suits him to do so...

Why, that's not any type of "respect" at all...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why, that's not any type of "respect" at all...

exactly...

 

[Quantum Quack]

It really has nothing to do about party politics as karenmansker and youreyes seem to think. This issue strikes at the very heart of the system that makes politics even possible.
Which is why the judiciary have the final say and not politicians.