# Things Republicans Can Never Again Complain About

Discussion in 'Politics' started by spidergoat, Feb 20, 2017.

1. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
The "best chance to win" math requires accounting for more than one party. If it didn't, you'd never see another Democrat President...and we all know that's not likely. Just like the Bernie supporters who ultimately voted for Hilary did so to stop Trump, regardless of their vitriol for Hilary during the primary.
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with Trump having already shown he could withstand attacks from Hilary, the presumptive dem candidate, without being cowed like Republicans tend to be under accusations of racism, sexism, etc.. Any other male candidate could have just as easy disarmed the sexist, misogynist accusations...especially while having the kind of skeletons Trump did.

Or...most Republican candidates could never reach the level of attack nor media coverage necessary to disarm such accusations.
Believe whatever comforts you...or your echo chamber tells you to believe.
Sure, the First Amendment doesn't cover both the freedom of speech and the freedom of association, e.g. "the right of individuals to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members". How radical!
Do you also dislike the Court's "radical alterations" of its own precedent of many cases supporting slave owner rights?

And where did any Republican say, "Bribery is speech, and expression of opinion"? Cite your source.
39.2% of Democrat Representatives and 58% of Democrat Senators (including Hilary) voted in favor of the Iraq resolution. The fallout, either way, is immaterial to the fact.
Unless you can cite a significant Republican source denying the Iraq war, I can only assume this is a lazy straw man. Most Republicans simply blame Bush for the flip-flopping on nation building and Obama for the premature pull out.
Results After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of most of the lifetime Axis I and Axis II mental disorders was associated with lower levels of income. Participants with household income of less than $20 000 per year were at increased risk of incident mood disorders during the 3-year follow-up period in comparison with those with income of$70 000 or more per year. A decrease in household income during the 2 time points was also associated with an increased risk of incident mood, anxiety, or substance use disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 99% confidence interval, 1.06-1.60) in comparison with respondents with no change in income. Baseline presence of mental disorders did not increase the risk of change in personal or household income in the follow-up period.

Conclusions Low levels of household income are associated with several lifetime mental disorders and suicide attempts, and a reduction in household income is associated with increased risk for incident mental disorders.
- http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/211213

You were saying?
So you'd rather restrain all of your principled Congressmen because the other party won POTUS and will veto everything they do? How principled is it to KNOW that your principles won't translate into action? Apparently you're not familiar with reconciling conflicting principles.
Yep, you're missing that the "top-tier candidate" was already overwhelmed by Trump's characterizations in his inordinate, free media coverage (which was also the reason people thought he could handle Hilary...because he had enough coverage to drive the narrative).
I certainly wouldn't miss your replies. But for some reason I doubt you'd put me on ignore unless you can convince enough of your compatriots to do so as well. You just don't strike me as a very independent person.

Last edited: Feb 22, 2017

3. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
I may yet... But then I'd miss out on your fantastic boot licking and hole digging

5. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
Really? "Get points"? Is that your only motive here?
Where did I imply "psychotic break"? Yes, it is rather trivial that rich and powerful people do tend to be narcissists. So was Obama.
See the statistics on income and mental illness I posted earlier. Where did I imply if mentally ill always mentally ill? You're making up an awful lot of bullshit. Belief in free markets does not equate to wealth cult, it denotes a confidence in independence.
You were the one who tried to refute it as a straw man, claiming it was something I originated. That memory failing you, crony?
I've already refuted this "duty" nonsense. Until you can provide counter legal opinion, you're just speaking from ignorance.
Proclaim all the false victories you like...you must really need the affirmation.
You'll notice the only mandatory "shall" is placed on the President, not Congress.
I've already given you legal opinions...which you've simply ignored in lieu of counter opinion.
So this:
...was just a non-sequitur or red herring?
Unprecedented does not mean illegal, wrong, or even just untoward. Like I asked iceaura, do you also dislike the Court's overturn of its own precedent in many cases supporting slave owner rights?

LIAR! Where? Prove it, or apologize, crony.
LOL! Straw man. I've never refuted that Trump could launch nuclear weapons. Remember, I said "war", not "nuclear war" (that memory of yours again). You're making a straw man of your previous straw man, for christ's sake. Nor have I denied the devastation of nuclear war, but you just keep erecting easily defeated straw man arguments to make yourself feel better.
The copious fallacies prove you have no point, crony.
You're obviously oblivious to reality. The current race relations is a result of current Democrat identity politics. Need I quote LBJ?

7. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
Sure...I'll be holding my breath.

8. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
28,025
Of course. And Trump was in fact - just as they estimated - the candidate most greatly favored among their fellow Republicans, the most likely to draw the largest number of Republican votes, the best and truest representative of the Republican Party and its voting members.
Of course all the many wonderful virtues of the courageous Trump recommended him to all true Republicans as the best Republican candidate of them all. Anyone could see this, and of course those doing the math were as well aware of Trump's strength among the Party's voting body as I or anyone was.
We seem to be in complete agreement: Trump was the best representative of Republican voters available, the strongest and most capable Republican candidate, the true champion of Republican character and values. And so he proved to be - 63 million votes worth, including the entire Republican voting base. Exactly as those doing the math hoped.
We were discussing the Citizen's United ruling, here: https://www.scribd.com/document/25537902/Citizens-Opinion
Freedom of association is not mentioned, or relevant. The case was decided on freedom of speech only. First Amendment protection of political speech was explicitly extended to all corporations in their status as legal people, and explicitly held to cover the giving of sums of money to political campaign operations.

Here's the central stupidity:
No, I thought they were justified and well reasoned - in particular, because they were based on the Constitution having been amended, and the old precedents based on the old Constitution no longer holding in any case. A War had been fought, to accomplish that alteration of the Constitution - remember? We can also mention that a handful of marginally relevant decisions involving unchanged circumstances over twenty or thirty years is considerably less weighty, as precedent, than principles consistently maintained for 250 years of dramatic alterations in the circumstances.
Both of those are based on denial of key Iraq War facts, but they are unusual in their explicit and narrow reference;
the more complete and common denials are the simple understandings taken as the context of discussion - when ascribing the US Federal debt to Obama's profligacy in domestic expenditures, for example, as is common.
I quoted the Supreme Court decision. Every other claim that corporate gift-giving to a politician is "speech" also falls under that heading.
And of course the companion claims also holds: corporate financing of attacks, the creation of serious threat and blackmail without personal accountability, is also protected speech under this ruling. Not just bribery, but anonymous threat, is granted First Amendment protection.
The fallout, which was Republican media engineered and distributed, is directly material to the fact that the Iraq War was entirely a Republican venture, a disaster caused by that one Party, its politicians, its corporate support, its media operations, its intellectual wing, and so forth, entirely.
I was saying that the existence of various psychopathologies among very wealthy businessmen is common enough to be a stereotype. And their visibility in the the Republican Party is especially striking.

9. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
Yeah really. You don't get points for all the childish emoticons. Are you a child? What's with your emoticon fixation? You are obfuscating again comrade and you are not being honest. This isn't about my motivations. It's about yours.

Are you now pleading ignorance of your words or their meanings? Do I have to give you a lesson in psychology too? You don't remember writing, "So in your little world, the mentally ill can become wealthy business men?" A psychotic break is the only kind of mental illness which would render someone completely incapable of functioning.

Well it didn't take you long to bring up the "so was" right wing defense, i.e. excuse. Now where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that Obama is a narcissist, and where is the evidence Obama's alleged narcissism is equivalent to that of The Donald? The facts are, as with most everything else with you, you have no evidence.

Why? How are those "statistics", given in a separate discussion, relevant to this discussion? They aren't. You are obfuscating again comrade.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not making stuff up comrade. The only one making stuff up here is you comrade. I suggest you read your previous post. What does a belief in free markets have anything to do with Trump or wealth cults? Nothing. Free markets have absolutely nothing to do with the right wing cult of wealth. You are once again evading and obfuscating comrade. Unfortunately for you and your right wing cohorts, the truth isn't bullshit.

You have asserted that because Trump is a wealthy businessman he is immune from human frailty, i.e. that he cannot suffer from a mental illness. Trump has made similar arguments with respect to himself. He has argued that because he is wealthy he is incorruptible.

As demonstrated by your posts, and by the words and actions of your right wing fellows, the right wing wealth cult is alive and well.

The fact is as demonstrated by your posts, you are a devotee of the right wing wealth cult. Just because Trump is a wealthy man, it doesn't follow he is superman. It doesn't mean he isn't mentally ill. It doesn't mean he is immune from human frailties. Again, I suggest you read your posts. Do you not understand the stuff you write?

And what straw man would that be exactly? I asked you some questions. Questions which you are avoiding. Questions are not not a straw man comrade. They are just questions. Are you telling me now you don't remember writing, " Only the left thinks the world is going to end. Most rational people know that our system of checks and balances is more than capable of reigning in an out of control executive branch, with things like the threat of impeachment, Congressional approval for declarations of war, etc.."?

You don't think beginning war nuclear or otherwise is preventable by checks and balances? Nuclear war was just one example of the holes in your assertion. It wasn't a straw man. You obviously don't like the fact you've gotten your privates stuck in an awkward place. But whose fault is that comrade?

Except you haven't. Unfortunately for you and your fellow right wingers, you cannot refute the US Constitution.

So now you don't like the wording of the Constitution. Why am I not surprised?

Unprecedented means unprecedented, and unfortunately for you legal precedent is an important aspect of our law. And if you had any legal knowledge , you would know that. It isn't a red herring, it isn't a non sequitur. It's the law.

The fact is what Republicans have done is unprecedented with respect to the US Supreme Court, among other things, is unprecedented.

LOL....

Is the truth getting to you comrade?

I quoted you.

True, you never refuted Trump could launch nuclear weapons. No one said you did...oops. You have just made another straw man argument comrade. Congratulations on another fallacious argument.

Once again, I used nuclear war as an example of one of the holes in your "checks and balances" fallacy.

"You don't think nuclear war could be the end of the human world? Well that explains a lot, doesn't it? The point was your reliance on checks and balances isn't the panacea you have represented it to be. As previously pointed out to you, Trump could launch a nuclear war within in minutes and without consultation with anyone. Your reliance on "checks and balances" to contain Trump has some serious holes in it. That was the point comrade." - My previous post.

I have told you this several times now. Are you really that dense or that desperate?

Well then you should be able to prove your assertion that I'm oblivious to reality. But you can't because I'm not. You are licking your wounds from a brush with reality comrade. Once again for your edification. The Democratic base is much broader and more diverse than the Republican base. As you pointed out the Democratic Party caters to a diverse interest group, blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, other minorities, and educated whites. And as previously pointed out to you the Republican Party caters to a narrow base: lesser educated whites and the wealthy few.

Once again comrade, you are not being honest. You are obfuscating. I asked you a question, and it wasn't a rhetorical question. Answer it.

10. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
Hey, if you're so desperate you feel you need to poison the well with a genetic fallacy, knock yourself out, crony. Irrelevant protestations are just transparent red herrings.
That's a straw man of your own making. And if you really think that "only" a psychotic break can impair someone's ability to succeed, apparently you don't know anything about mental illness either. Acute breaks are typically transitory, but chronic conditions can be just as debilitating. Hell, even of psychotic breaks, "Symptoms can range from harmless, sometimes unnoticed delusions..."
I posted a link and you can search plenty more yourself...if you even know how to use Google. But that would upset your applecart, crony.
What, because they weren't originally addressed to you, crony, actual facts are magically irrelevant?

You've yet to substantiate your paranoid "wealth cults", so there's nothing to refute except your fallacious bare assertion.
Nope. Just another sad straw man. Otherwise, quote where I made any such claim. You won't, because it doesn't exist (except solely in your head).
More paranoid conspiracy theories.

Obviously YOU don't understand what I write.

Since your memory seems to be complete crap, I've quoted the whole exchange to help you keep up. The straw man that I ever claimed Democrats were conservative, which was what iceaura said. And now you're either confused or intentionally try to distract from your many fallacies and face plants.
LOL! Even for nuclear launch, the Secretary of Defense, vice-president (possibly), Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Strategic Command, and the actual launch crew are all in loop. You'd have to be equally paranoid of all of them for your fears of a Trump nuclear launch to be the slightest bit credible. So you seem pretty fact-phobic there, crony.
No need to refute repeated bare assertions without any evidence.

It's called legal opinions from legal scholars.
I've already given you an example of the Court changing its own precedent (slave owner rights). So now you're just denying facts, crony.
Doubling down on your lies. I keep asking you where I said these things, and you NEVER quote it. Pathetic lying.
Again, I have to quote the whole exchange so you can keep up.

You do know that "wasn't" means "was not", right?

11. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
Yet nothing to support your obviously partisan claim.

12. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
LOL....Wow. I didn't intend to send you into crisis comrade. Do you know any other big words like fallacy, knock yourself out, crony? Now if you knew the meaning of the words you use, people just might think better of you comrade.

It's kind of funny conversing with you while you accuse others of setting up a straw man when they have done no such thing, while you are setting up your straw man. And that, along with other things, leads me to believe you don't understand the words and the terms that you use.

I wrote, "A psychotic break is the only kind of mental illness which would render someone completely incapable of functioning.".

Definition of psychosis
a serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia ) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychosis

The fact is your belief that Trump is immune from mental illness because he is rich is just nonsense comrade. This right wing wealth cult, i.e. the belief that wealthy folks are super human or in some cases godlike is just nonsense. Just because Trump is wealthy, it doesn't follow that he isn't also mentally ill. That's your fallacy comrade. Own it. You advanced it, and you own it.

I get it, you are feeling foolish. But whose fault is that?

No. You provided no links. You can copy all kinds of nonsense, but you can copy-paste a link? You can't copy-paste a link because it doesn't exist. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your assertion Obama is just as narcissistic as Trump is. Let's see it comrade. You made the allegation. Let's see the evidence or just admit your are full of bullshit.

You posted a single survey result, which as previously pointed out to you is irrelevant for the reasons previously given. You are obfuscating comrade. Now if you can explain why you think it is relevant, please do so. But you can't. Because it isn't relevant. You keep trying to distract the conversation onto irrelevant issues. Rather than admit the stupidity of your argument you keep attempting to distract from the issues at hand. That's not intellectually honest comrade.

I'll remind you for something like the 3rd time now, you wrote, "So in your little world, the mentally ill can become wealthy business men?", which clearly implies that because Trump is wealthy he cannot be mentally ill. You wrote that comrade.

As previously pointed out to you, Trump has used it and used it repeatedly. He has argued his wealth makes him special. It makes him incorruptible. That was one of his key arguments for his candidacy.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/don...clinton_isnt_rich_enough_to_be_incorruptible/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trumps-so-rich-i-cant-be-bought-120743

Nope, just another demonstration that you don't understand logic and are either incredibly dense or just don't under stand what you read. I have repeatedly done it. I suggest you go back one paragraph.

LOL.....

The truth isn't paranoia comrade, nor is it a conspiracy. It's just the truth.

As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, I don't think you understand what you write. Either that, or you are incredibly dishonest. Take your pick.

LOL.....

Well here is the thing comrade, your illogical argument, your ad hominem aren't working. Iceaura's posts aren't relevant to our little discussion. Unfortunately for you, this discussion is just between you and me. You can post all the crap you want. It's not going to change the naked absurdity of your posts. It's not going to make your words disappear.

Oh so now you are going to reverse course. Feeling a bit pressured are you...? The Secretary of Defense is in the loop only to validate the the authenticity of the presidents orders: to authenticate the order is from the POTUS. He has no authority to override orders of the POTUS and the Secretary of Defense can be dismissed at any time and for any reason by the POTUS. The vice president is not involved. It only takes 4 minutes to launch nuclear weapons. The POTUS can launch nuclear weapons at any time and for any reason.

Reliance on checks and balances isn't the panacea you have represented it to be.

You have given the opinion of one partisan. I have you the source document: the US Constitution.

And how is that relevant? It isn't. The fact is what Republicans did last year was not only unconstitutional, it was unprecedented. It has absolutely nothing to do with courts changing their opinions.

And I keep quoting you, and you keep pretending. You have done nothing but support Trump, post after post. Others have pointed it out to you. Who do you think you are fooling comrade? Unfortunately for you and those like you comrade, most people are not as dumb as you need them to be.

HMM....

That's a distraction comrade, but you need more than distractions. You need evidence and reason, and you have none: hence all of these distractions. You cannot face the truth, because to do so would mean you would have to admit you are full of shit. And you cannot do that. Can you?

13. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
More poisoning the well, crony. How pathetic.
Remember writing this?
Either that's a non-sequitur and it only applies to "someone completely incapable of functioning" (which trivially excludes the wealthy), you actually think psychotic break is the only debilitating form of mental illness (laughably ignorant), or it's a refute of a straw man (since I never specified psychotic break). Which is it, crony?

I was more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you just read more into what I wrote than was there, but if you'd rather I know it was only a red herring at best, so be it.
Liar! I never implied Trump was "immune from mental illness" at all. Quote it (and no, you haven't already done so).
Nor have you provided any reason to believe the paranoid delusion about "wealth cults" and "super human wealthy" are anything but a nonexistent straw man. Show me anyone who believes any of that. Go ahead, cite an actual source...instead of obviously overactive paranoid delusion.
You've obviously gone off the deep end, crony.

There was no refute of that data but a bare assertion (fallacy), which you're still doing with you unsupported claims of it being irrelevant (convenient way to dodge inconvenient data

). I get that you accept anything that confirms your bias as fact, even just the unsupported opinions of others here, but that's a problem with your own intellectual honesty, not the data.
Apparently you don't understand a question mark. I was asking if this was, indeed, the assertion. Seriously, are you a native English speaker?

And? Is he claiming to be rich somehow defacto evidence of mental illness?

Or is this just another red herring?

"Read"? You claimed I made an assertion that you can't show ever occurred. And again, it's obvious you can't keep up with the discussion.
Repeating a lie doesn't lend in truth.
Where's the evidence?
False dilemma, but you'd know that if you were the least bit intellectually honest. I know exactly what I've written, and you repeatedly lie about it.
It certainly seemed relevant, crony, when you thought I has made the claim. Now you just have to desperately claim everything is irrelevant in the vain hope of not looking any more foolish than you already have.

Yes, the Secretary of Defense certainly can be replaced with his deputy, and the VP may not be involved (as I already noted, unless he declares POTUS mentally unfit, under the 25th Amendment). Then you still have the Joint Chief's of Staff and the actual launch crew, any of which might disobey an order. And they'd be justified, if the order were found illegal, as there is precedent for disobeying illegal presidential orders (and obeying them leaving you open to prosecution). Or they could do so under risk of court-martial.
Is it a risk? Yes. Did I ever say there were checks and balances on nuclear strikes? No.
Liar. I gave you multiple opinions, and you just keep making bare assertions about the Constitution.

You keep saying that, but you've offered no support whatsoever.

That's just your naive black and white thinking. I also freely admit that Trump lies regularly, is only a RINO, and I didn't vote for him. But apparently you can't distinguish specific policy agreement from general support of a politician.

So once again, if it embarrasses you, it's irrelevant. "Was" doesn't mean "wasn't".

14. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
Well, only in your right wing little world is the truth pathetic comrade.

Yes, I do. I quoted you verbatim.

I think you need to rush down the nearest junior college and sign up for the first available reading comprehension class comrade. You should sign up for a logic course while you are at it. If you cannot understand simple English, well there isn't much I or anyone else can do for you here.

The fact is, you said some really dumb stuff and I pointed out your errors. Those errors remain. You very clearly asserted that Trump's wealth rendered Trump incapable of being mentally ill. I quoted you verbatim. You asserted Trump's wealth made him immune from mental illness.

I pointed out to you that there are a range of mental illnesses with varying degrees of debilitation and that the only mental illness which was completely debilitating a was a psychosis i.e. a complete break with reality. Your assertion that Trump's wealth makes him immune from mental illness is clearly wrong.

So now you are obfuscating and attempting to set up yet another straw man. Well, comrade, that ain't gonna work.

Except you did, and I have quoted you verbatim.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt comrade. Your words betray you. You cannot change what you have written. I have quoted you several times now. You and your right wing fellows are active participants in the wealth cult. As previously pointed out to you, Trump himself, pointed to his wealth as evidence of his incorruptibility. And I have provided you links to credible sources to back it up. If you aren't satisfied, google it yourself. The evidence really isn't that difficult to find.

LOL...

Except you didn't...oops. You are not being honest comrade. A malicious link, isn't evidence of anything other than your immorality and dishonesty.

I asked you for evidence to support your assertion that Obama is just as narcissistic as Trump is. So stop the dishonesty. Let's see the evidence. But you have none because none exists.

You posted one survey result and called it your "statistics". If you think it is somehow relevant, then show how it is relevant. YOU CANNOT, hence all this obfuscation.

And you don't remember calling it a rhetorical question? The fact is you very clearly inferred that Trump's wealth was evidence he wasn't mentally ill.

You are back to your straw man crap. No one said or even hinted at that comrade. That's you making shit up again. Trump's behavior is evidence of his mental illness. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568

So why do you keep repeating yourself? I showed you where you made the assertion. I've shown it to you several times now, as recently as a few paragraphs ago. You very clearly asserted Trump could not be mentally ill because of his wealth.

Pointing out your errors of logic isn't a false dilemma comrade. It's just pointing out a fact.

Well, here is the thing comrade, if you think I'm wrong, explain why. Instead of all this ad hominem crap, explain why. But you cannot, because I'm right. That's why you dump all this ad hominem crap.

No you don't, The Joint Chiefs aren't in the loop. The fact is your reliance upon "checks and balances" isn't a panacea as you have represented it to be. Everyone under the the POTUS serve at his pleasure. He can dismiss any or all of them at any time. He is the Commander in Chief.

You gave me yours and the opinion of another partisan. I can give you legal opinions from more credible sources which say you are wrong.

Seriously....are you that lazy? It's not that difficult to verify.

Geoffrey R. Stone is a Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Chicago.

Now that the Supreme Court term has drawn to a close, we can assess what the Senate Republicans have gained by their unprecedented and unconscionable refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court.

http://time.com/4383644/supreme-court-nomination/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-garland-idUSKCN11C2HM

15. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,705
It's possible to split hairs about Joe's terminology, but that doesn't change the extraordinary bullshit about your proposition:

A complete psychotic break would be sufficient to preclude such outcomes as long as it was in effect, but picking that particular nit is a matter for either disruptive pedantry or a more educated discussion in which more subtle differences have an opportunity to be important. The bottom line is that, yes, Donald Trump can be both crazy and successful. This is hardly extraordinary in contexts attending either Ockham or LaPlace.

Your twist of rhetoric doesn't work.

16. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
So you're conflating a question (notice the question mark) with an assertion too?
And I invite you to show where I've claimed otherwise. I've certainly shown statistics that bear out the notion that mental illness is less frequent among higher incomes, but I've never made the sweeping generality that wealth cannot coincide with mental illness. That is a straw man erected by others, and they seem to have dupped you with it.
What rhetoric? That I won't defend a straw man argument?

For once.
Another in your very long list of outright lies.
Where? You keep claiming you have, but you never link to it. Hence, you're lying, and just trolling to avoid admitting it. I guess looking pathetic is a step up for you.
More paranoid delusion without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. You just keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, as if it will keep the boogieman away.

Says the crony who poisons the well (special case of ad hominem) regularly.

LOL! So now you claim I didn't post a link, only to immediately say it's "malicious". What a joke. Your bare assertions, e.g. "isn't evidence", are not refutes. Until you refute anything in the link I've already given you, I can only assume that you don't possess the intellectual honesty to do anything but dismiss anything you don't agree with.

If you cannot refute that data, there's no need for me to do anything else.
More of your lies. I've quoted myself saying "wasn't rhetorical" many times now. I can only assume you are trolling.
Who ever refuted that Trump was a narcissist?

Remember, I said "So was Obama." That literally means that Trump is too. And where you're only citing definitions, without specifying which actions are indicative, I've already cited an article listing specifics on Obama.

Again, seemingly ad infinitum, that was a question, not an assertion. Again, do you know what a question mark means?
Apparently you don't know what a false dilemma is either.

Where did I ever say you were wrong to criticize iceaura's ignorant "any real conservatives still left in the US voted for Clinton"? You were wrong to attribute that nonsense to me, and you don't seem to have the honesty to simply admit that.
How do you think the President's chosen target gets from the White House to the Pentagon, from the Pentagon on Strategic Command, and from Strategic Command to the launch crew? You do realize that which platform launches the weapons depends on where the target is, right? A sub may be closer than a silo. Who do you think handles those logistics?
And where did I claim checks and balances were any kind of panacea? Just more of your lies, desperately trying to justify your own paranoia.
No, I gave you five or so legal opinions, from lawyers and legal scholars. Again, either your sorry memory or dishonesty is working against your credibility.
That would be long overdue.
LOL! "Unprecedented and unconscionable" doesn't mean unconstitutional. Nor does Harry Reid's "disgusting and repugnant."
Where were your supposed "legal opinions from more credible sources"?

Still waiting.

More lies without any links to even pretend to support your assertion.
Hey, I'm not the one who claimed "wasn't" meant "was".

17. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,705
I'm noting the rolling of the eyes in conjunction with the question.

The fact that you have no better explanation for your post only makes the point. As it is, your antitheticalist evasion leaves your posts essentially meaningless, which in turn means you've been deliberately trolling people.

See, now you require your own post to be meaningless.

Please understand, Syne, the only people who might bother pretending you're somehow sincere will be your fellow trolls.

Try actually making an argument.

Or, you know, you might want to start by finding one.

joepistole likes this.
18. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
You're imagining things on some very paltry assumptions.
Are you claiming that mental illness and becoming wealthy in business are positively correlated? If not, it is this post of yours that is vacuous of anything but unfounded accusation.
Again, are you claiming mental illness is positively correlated to becoming wealthy in business? So far, people have only offered bare assertions. Do you have any citations?

I rolled my eyes at the presumption of mental illness without any supporting evidence...other than personal opinion. This was verified by iceaura's response, "Of course. That's almost a stereotype", which does seem to be an assertion of a positive correlation between the two. Between that and joe's "cult of wealth" and end of the world paranoia, there's plenty to roll my eyes at. Are you defending either of those here, or are you just making meaningless suppositions?

Messages:
3,515
deleted

20. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
For several times now. You are not being honest comrade.

Well, then it should be easy for you to list and prove those "outright lies". But we both know you can't, because your allegations are simply not true.

You have been quoted verbatim several times now. You aren't being honest comrade. You got your wee wee stuck and now you are denying it. Unfortunately for you comrade it ain't gonna work. You have written what you have written, and you cannot now change it. You asserted that because Trump was a wealthy businessman he couldn't be mentally ill. Now, because you have been called out on it and now recognize the absurdity of your assertion you are denying it.

Your steadfast refusal to be honest isn't a paranoid delusion, nor is it without evidence. My posts have been littered with evidence. Your refusal to recognize evidence and to be honest isn't evidence of anything other than your consistent dishonesty.

Why would I want to refute something to which I was not a party? I said your "data", formerly referred to as "statistics", i.e. one opinion survey, simply isn't relevant to this discussion. As I have repeatedly told you now, if you think the survey you referred to is relevant, then explain why you think it is relevant. To date, you haven't been able to do that.

Well, you can assume what you want. But your written words betray you, and it's not just me who has read your words and come to the same conclusions. You are obfuscating comrade, and that is not being honest.

Who ever asked the question? Yes, you invoked the "so was Obama" argument and you were asked to prove it. And to date, and contrary to your assertion, you referenced a malicious code. You have provided no evidence to back up your assertion that Obama is just as narcissistic as Trump's very obvious and overt narcissism.

You are really hiding behind that tiny question mark aren't you.

Well that's not going to help you comrade. Most people are not as dumb as you and your right wing cohorts need them to be.

Well, I do know pointing out your errors of fact and logic isn't a false dilemma, and not amount of your nonsense isn't gonna change that. You aren't able to rewrite the laws of logic and reason.

Where did I ever say anything about Iceaura here? YOU are clearly confused comrade.

Apparently, you don't understand how this works comrade. It only takes 4 minutes for the POTUS to launch a nuclear attack. The POTUS has a number of planned attack options. Those options are chosen when the POTUS enters the codes. The commands go directly through the nuclear command chain. It doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs. It goes from the POTUS directly to the affected units. Apparently you don't realize that not all nuclear weapons are housed in silos. They don't have "launch crews".

The Pentagon has planned several battle plans. All the POTUS need do is select one and authorize it. The rest is automated. Orders are given and obeyed.

Yea, I and everyone who had read or will read this conversation knows what you have done.

You don't have to wait; you just have to open your eyes.

The fact is, per previously referenced sources, what Republicans did was unprecedented. The Republican controlled Senate didn't do its duty and that was unprecedented in American history.

Hey, I'm not the one who claimed "wasn't" meant "was".

[/QUOTE]

And you think that makes sense? You were asked a question comrade, and you haven't answered. You are obfuscating again.

21. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
28,025
There was no presumption of mental illness in my post.

It was a response to a very silly presumption of yours, which you posted: that you thought being a wealthy and successful businessmen was some kind of counter-evidence to a suspicion of mental illness based on observed behavior typical of the mentally ill.

22. ### CapracusValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,077
Give a fortune to the mentally impaired and they can succeed.

Howard Hughes

Occupation: Movie mogul and industrialist
Disorder: Obsessive-compulsive disorder

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/disorders/gallery/gallery_case6.shtml

Give a fortune to the right primate and they can succeed.

A monkey throwing darts to pick stocks would have made a 150% profit during the decade-long run when Donald Trump’s namesake company, Trump Entertainment Resorts, lost 90 cents on the dollar, the billionaire Warren Buffett said at a Hillary Clinton campaign event Monday in Omaha, Neb.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bu...to-outperform-trump-as-an-investor-2016-08-02

Want to appear successful? Produce a fictional account of your life story.

“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

23. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908

It would be laughable were it not true. Trump is a sociopath. He has no moral backbone, and he wouldn't be POTUS today were it not for the very undemocratic aspects of our government, e.g. the Electoral College or the right wing entertainment industry. Trump is the embodiment of right wing entertainment. Right wing entertainment is good at inciting and misinforming people, but it can't govern: fiction meets reality. And that's Trump's problem, and it's now our problem, e.g. Obamacare.