What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

stefanovich

everlast75 wrote: »

The cognitive dissonance.

The GOP literally stood by while one of their own tried to stop the transition of power as set out in the constitution.

Cognitive dissonance means to hold two opposing opinions at once.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Bias is an incredible truth filter

I believe you asked someone to provide examples to demonstrate that you tend to state nonsense, and I happily obliged. Would you like to comment on your nonsense? Or ignore it like you did when I pointed out you were wrong several times in the past?

joe40

12gauge dave wrote: »

A bad week for democrats.

Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) Tweeted:
Great week.

Trump beats impeachment. Dems in disarray. The Lincoln Project burnt to the ground. The RINOS in the GOP establishment exposed & collapsing. Cuomo & Dem Govs in free fall. The media depressed and lashing out at Dems for their impeachment fail.

#MAGA ascending again! https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1360742476139610118?s=20

Remind me again... who won the election?

This acquittal was like Dublin winning the all Ireland, some were happy, some weren't, but absolutely no one was surprised.

The outcome of this process was never in doubt.

( Just to be clear I'm not comparing the Dublin football team to Trump)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

stefanovich wrote: »

Cognitive dissonance means to hold two opposing opinions at once.

The GOP believes in/does not believe in a peaceful transition of power.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I believe you asked someone to provide examples to demonstrate that you tend to state nonsense, and I happily obliged. Would you like to comment on your nonsense? Or ignore it like you did when I pointed out you were wrong several times in the past?

I was suggesting that two people read the same article and interpret it in two different ways. Must be bias involved somewhere.

I’ll address your post when I have more time.

stefanovich

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The GOP believes in/does not believe in a peaceful transition of power.

Is the GOP one person?

Beasty

Real Donald Trump threadbanned

12gauge dave

Eric Trump (@EricTrump) Tweeted:
“Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun. In the months ahead I have much to share with you...” https://t.co/uDFydj7Xy0 https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1360728661041766404?s=20

Statement from the man himself congratulations Mr Trump.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I’ll address your post when I have more time.

If you continue to reply in this thread, then you have the time. You can reply to each claim one at a time rather at once, it's no problem. The reason you asked for such examples is because you didn't think the person you were replying to could deal with a "rigorous debate", so let's not become hypocritical.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Statement from the man himself congratulations Mr Trump.

Hey now congratulating someone on their threadban is a bit harsh.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

stefanovich wrote: »

Is the GOP one person?

I'm not talking abotu the GOP holding said opinion.

If you want an individual: Mitch McConnell.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No problem, I'll step in if you don't mind.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: Obama is the "king of the drone strikes".
Actual fact: Trump is the "king of the drone strikes", with 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years compared with 1,878 drone strikes in Obama's eight years.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: Fact is he did a lot less harm than Obama or Bush or Bush Senior or pretty much any US president in decades.
Actual fact: As the total number of drone strikes done under Trump is not known, this is not a fact. See above.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: Zero proof he orchestrated anything, get your facts straight.
Actual fact: We don't even know if 67% of the Senate believes that. All we know is that 57% believe it that he is guilty of inciting violence and that it is constitutional to charge him for it. Along with those 57 senators, we at least also know that Mitch and both Idaho senators voted against conviction because Trump was no longer in office, not because he did or did not incite violence. As the majority of senators have not since released a public statement, we currently have no way of knowing if 67% of the senate believe he incited violence or not.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: He [Mitch] clearly said he was not guilty based on the charge. That’s why he voted against.
Actual fact: He in fact states that Trump did incite violence but could not be charged as a private citizen. See above.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: You understand that the dems are trying to implement 1984 right?
Actual fact: You have a large tendency to state your opinion as a fact without evidence but then get bothered when others do the same. No need to debunk this as it's, you know, obviously just an opinion and not a fact.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: They actually suggested at one point the onus was on him to prove innocence. You couldn’t make this up.
Actual fact: They actually said that, as in any civil trial, there is an inference that an accuser can say things and it can be claimed to be true if the defendant is not there to deny it. So yes, you can make this up.

Your claim, which you state as a fact: Impeachment removes one from office, he was already gone.
Actual fact: Impeachment does not remove one from office, conviction does. Trump has been impeached twice.

And that was what I found in only ten minutes. So yes, people should take what you say with a grain of salt.

Okay, Obama was the king.

The other presidents initiated wars.

Obama finished the war in Libya causing mayhem.

As for the 1984 comment, the unholy trinity of their media, disrespect for free speech and suppression of truth I find chilling.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Statement from the man himself congratulations Mr Trump.

Wouldn't call it a victory when Mitch Mcconnell has basically called for a criminal investigation of Trump.... Do you think that sounds like a positive outcome for Trump? Weird...

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Okay, Obama was the king.

Let's take those one at time. Explain this for starters.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

stefanovich wrote: »

Okay, Obama was the king.

The other presidents initiated wars.

Obama finished the war in Libya causing mayhem.

As for the 1984 comment, the unholy trinity of their media, disrespect for free speech and suppression of truth I find chilling.

So were your statements lies or just wrong?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Okay, Obama was the king.

The other presidents initiated wars.

Obama finished the war in Libya causing mayhem.

As for the 1984 comment, the unholy trinity of their media, disrespect for free speech and suppression of truth I find chilling.

He didn’t orchestrate the attack. That was done by the people who organised the attack and are under investigation.

If Trump paid for the attack to happen then I’ll concede.

There are suggestions some of the more violent actions were by antifa in a false flag attack.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So were your statements lies or just wrong?

stefanovich

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So were your statements lies or just wrong?

The only thing I got wrong was the number of drone strikes due to lack of information.

I trust, based on his character, that these were all against very dangerous people.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

He didn’t orchestrate the attack. That was done by the people who organised the attack and are under investigation.

If Trump paid for the attack to happen then I’ll concede.

So you disagree with Mitch then?

stefanovich wrote: »

There are suggestions some of the more violent actions were by antifa in a false flag attack.

Ah, thank you for that. Now I know I can just ignore you as you are just a conspiracy theorist.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’m not dealing with Twitter level idiocy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

IN all fianress, it depends on whether he knew what he was posting was ignorant bull**** when he postde it he just regurgitated it ignorantly because it fits his agenda without actually thinking.

I'd have more respet if it was the second. Not much, though.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

He didn’t orchestrate the attack. That was done by the people who organised the attack and are under investigation.

If Trump paid for the attack to happen then I’ll concede.

There are suggestions some of the more violent actions were by antifa in a false flag attack.

No, there are no suggestions that antifa did... You're branching further and further into conspiracy theories. They were Trump supporters encouraged by him and based on his statements to McCarthy, he approved.

By your logic, since Charles Manson killed nobody he wasn't culpable...

stefanovich wrote: »

I’m not dealing with Twitter level idiocy.

You just claimed an antifa false flag and that blm are a Marxist conspiracy... You're well into twitter level idiocy...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

stefanovich wrote: »

The only thing I got wrong was the number of drone strikes due to lack of information.

I trust, based on his character, that these were all against very dangerous people.

So one case of ignorant regugritation and the rest were all intentionally lying.

Grand - that;s that sorted out now.

(Although I think the last one was wrong rather than lying as well, as a few people have made that mistake.)

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

The only thing I got wrong was the number of drone strikes due to lack of information.

I trust, based on his character, that these were all against very dangerous people.

stefanovich: "Obama is evil! Have you not seen the number of drone strikes he did? :mad::mad::mad:"

me: "Trump did more."

stefanovich: "Ah it's ok, those people probably deserved it more. I know this because, you know, shut up, that's why."

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you disagree with Mitch then?



Ah, thank you for that. Now I know I can just ignore you as you are just a conspiracy theorist.

Yes I absolutely disagree with Mitch.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I’m not dealing with Twitter level idiocy.

I though you said you were defending Trump?

:pac:

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Yes I absolutely disagree with Mitch.

So that means you're giving an opinion rather than stating a fact right? Or are you claiming that you know more about American law than Mitch?

stefanovich

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So one case of ignorant regugritation and the rest were all intentionally lying.

Grand - that;s that sorted out now.

(Although I think the last one was wrong rather than lying as well, as a few people have made that mistake.)

Something that was true at one point. The escalation of drone strikes was an Obama era policy.

Please try to be less aggressive.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I though you said you were defending Trump?

:pac:

When your argument devolves into posting animations you’ve lost.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Something that was true at one point. The escalation of drone strikes was an Obama era policy.

Please try to be less aggressive.

Now now, you were being incredibly aggressive to people for not having the strength to deal with a rigorous debate. Let's not be backing down now just because you're being called out on your nonsense.