Rhetoric has no effect beyond a slight expelling of breath and sound. — NOS4A2

Hitler? Martin Luther King Jr.? :brow:

All that anti-Trump rhetoric on late night, much of it cherry picked from twitter, may work wonders on those who require an “applause” sign to remind them when to laugh. But they preach ant-Trumpism as a one-sided story, suppressing all evidence to the contrary. — NOS4A2

There isn't much to be suppressed though, is there?

Hitler? Martin Luther King Jr.?

Are you effected by their rhetoric? What effects does their rhetoric have on you?

There isn't much to be suppressed though, is there?

Of course there is. Every gaffe or piece of wrong think is usually one or two words torn from thousands and then sensationalized. It’s quite a lucrative racket, but it leaves people uninformed.

It's true. There's bullshit on display on the anti-Trump side, which is disappointing and confusing considering the actual facts.

I think his fiscal achievements and trade war are dangerous but only because wealth is already dangerously concentrated.

My only point is that he's stupid.

I’m not so sure about that. Not very many stupid billionaires out there.

There's at least one.

Are you effected by their rhetoric? What effects does their rhetoric have on you? — NOS4A2

Of course I am. Hundreds of people are, all over the world. They are famous (or infamous in the case of Hitler) rhetoricians. Don't be absurd.

There isn't much to be suppressed though, is there?

Of course there is. Every gaffe or piece of wrong think is usually one or two words torn from thousands and then sensationalized. It’s quite a lucrative racket, but it leaves people uninformed. — NOS4A2

To be clear, I was referring to your mention of the alleged suppressed evidence of the alleged success of Donald Trump. Can you give me some examples of evidence of his alleged success?

He has succeeded in bringing the worst out of those people who support him. He has succeeded in drastically lowering the bar of what's considered acceptable behaviour for a president of the US. He has succeeded in igniting racial tensions.

I will grant you that he has succeeded in these respects.

I’m not so sure about that. Not very many stupid billionaires out there. — NOS4A2

He inherited his wealth from Daddy Trump, managed to somehow bankrupt a casino, and would be richer if he had just invested in index funds.

The guy is pretty stupid, as clips like the one where he waits in the walkway between the backstage area and the stage, despite his name having been called out, and the one where he keeps signing copies of the same contract, instead of passing them along to the other heads of state to sign, asking which one is the one that matters, until Trudeau sets him straight, exemplify his stupidity. How embarrassing! He is as bad as George W., if not worse!

"I know all the best words".

"I don't repeat myself. I don't repeat myself. I do not repeat myself".

Legendary buffoonery.

Being a rhetorician does not mean your rhetoric has the power to effect matter. Don’t be absurd.

Again, magical thinking in its purest form. No, trump is not to blame for how others conduct themselves.

He inherited his wealth from Daddy Trump, managed to somehow bankrupt a casino, and would be richer if he had just invested in index funds.

No, it’s not true. Trump made is billions before his father died. It’s easy to invest in index funds (an argument i’ve heard many times already, meaning it’s plagiarized), but it’s more difficult and risky to run a vast empire. You name one casino, but won’t name any of the 250+ entities bearing his name. One-sided story, suppression of evidence to the contrary.

There's at least one.

The one who became president? Excuse me if I just don’t see it and attribute the malice to snobbery.

Being an effective rhetorician does. Late night hosts wouldn't be late night hosts, or wouldn't keep their job for long, if they weren't effective rhetoricians, and Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., and to a much lesser extent Trump, are all known for being effective rhetoricians, especially the first two, so there's nothing to even argue over here, as you don't have a leg to stand on.

And regarding your exaggerated claim about "suppression" of evidence, you haven't shown that at all. I'm just telling you what I've found out from various sources, and I even requested evidence from you, so your allegation of "suppression" is ludicrous. Moreover, it's funny how you seem to have an answer for everything: apologetics much?

Are you going to excuse his "pussy grabbing" remark, too? Let me guess, just locker-room talk, right?

The one who became president? Excuse me if I just don’t see it and attribute the malice to snobbery. — NOS4A2

I have malice toward none.*

If you don't see his stupidity, I wonder about your own situation.


*reference to a truly great American president

Being an effective rhetorician does. Late night hosts wouldn't be late night hosts, or wouldn't keep their job for long, if they weren't effective rhetoricians, and Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., and to a much lesser extent Trump, are all known for being effective rhetoricians, especially the first two, so there's nothing to even argue over here, as you don't have a leg to stand on.

There is plenty to argue over, you just refuse to represent my argument properly, choosing to cower in a field of straw men.

And regarding your exaggerated claim about "suppression" of evidence, you haven't shown that at all. I'm just telling you what I've found out from various sources, and I even requested evidence from you, so your allegation of "suppression" is ludicrous. Moreover, it's funny how you seem to have an answer for everything: apologetics much?

You mentioned one failed business venture but didn’t mention any of the hundreds of successes. That’s clear suppression of contrary evidence.

I can give you one example. The belief, now widespread, that Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people”. This has already been thoroughly refuted, but no less still persists in the ant-Trumpist mind.

If you don't see his stupidity, I wonder about your own situation.

Wonder away. It’s not abnormal for people to fill in the blanks where only ignorance lies.

Wonder away. It’s not abnormal for people to fill in the blanks where only ignorance lies. — NOS4A2

Yep.

Trump is a retard. People who defend him either have an agenda and see him as a tool to further their own agenda or they are retards themselves. That said, arguing with a presumed retard makes it hard to tell the difference.

He does at times show a degree of street smarts and guile though. Like supporting a conspiracy theory involving the Clintons re Epstein's death. Smart move to have the media attacking that bit of nonsense rather than focusing on accusations that Trump was involved with Epstein in child rape and had potentially more than anyone to gain by his death. The media and his political foes are rather crap at taking him on in general though. Rather than just attack him for being anti-PC etc (which he loves) they ought to spend more time attacking him for redistributing money away from the working class to the rich, for ballooning the debt, for hurting farmers with his trade wars, for using his wealth to wangle his way out of Vietnam etc. Focus on his privilege, cowardice, and incompetence, those aspects of his character that might be distasteful to his core supporters and leverage that rather than attack him for just what's made him popular.

Yes, Donald Trump is a pussy. :up:

You mentioned one failed business venture but didn’t mention any of the hundreds of successes. That’s clear suppression of contrary evidence. — NOS4A2

What nonsense. Tell me, how can I mention details of which I do not know? If you think that that's suppression, then you must not know what the word "suppression" actually means. I never claimed to know about these "hundreds of successes" which you allege of Trump, but don't actually provide any evidence of. I told you what I do know, which is that all of these alleged successes are in fact failures relative to the amount of wealth he would have amassed if he had simply invested in Index Funds, which you yourself say is easy to do. So, explain to me why the smart thing to have done (if he's too incompetent to make a greater profit through the actual running of his business, which turned out to be true) wouldn't have been to invest in Index Funds. You haven't actually answered that, just dismissed it.

I can give you one example. The belief, now widespread, that Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people”. This has already been thoroughly refuted, but no less still persists in the ant-Trumpist mind. — NOS4A2

No, that's not an example at all in your favour, it is a baseless assertion. It does nothing, except count against Trump, and adds to the evidence against him, ethically. It is well known, and a matter of public record, that in reference to the Charlottesville massacre, he said, and I quote, "You also had some very fine people on both sides". On both sides! For crying out loud, what a scumbag. And you're part of the problem by mindlessly defending his despicable and calculated remarks, which were clearly a dog whistle to all of his racist and Neo-Nazi supporters.

Anti-trumpism leads the thinker to blame the world’s ills, not to mention their fears, on a single individual man. — NOS4A2

Anti means opposed to or against, simply. Any progressive liberal would be opposed to Trumps agenda.

Either Trump is a great sorcerer or they’ve subscribed to magical thinking.

Or you’ve been watching too much Fox News.

The rest of their criticism stems from political correctness and base snobbery, as it was taught to them by Washington and Hollywood elites.

How can a critique of Trumps failures be based on being PC and snobbish?

If Trump supporters thought Trump was competent, they would have freaked out when Trump said:
"Take the guns first, go through due process second" I mean, this is a Republican we're talking about. Can you imagine if Reagan had said that? Or Bush?

Any other Republican who said that would have been banished to Republican Outer Mongolia. But Trump can say it because everyone knows you can't take him seriously on anything. He's a moron. He says really stupid things, like windmills cause cancer, and this gem:

“I have broken more Elton John records. He seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No, we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical – the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right? The brain. More important than the mouth is the brain. The brain is much more important.”

It's obvious the person who said the above has a serious mental problem.

You'll be eating your words when he gets Denmark to sell Greenland to the US and turns it into the most successful golfing haven on the planet (he's way ahead on the global warming curve).

That's a lot of alphabet pasta.

(he's way ahead on the global warming curve). — Baden

No, he just goes by the name, Greenland, perfect for golf courses

:lol:

He probably thought that being up north, property would be cheap, just partner up with a Russian investor, and the locals could be bulldozed. You think he would have learned something from his experience in Toronto!

Actually, Toronto is a great example of classic Trumpian business practise. Bring in an investor with a big "debt" (for God knows what) to be paid off. Fill your personal account by charging exorbitant management fees. Defer payment to the locals who are doing the work. Declare bankruptcy and get the hell out of Dodge, pockets lined with gold. Debt paid off! -- At the expense of the locals.

All his critics have are word policing and word politics. “Trump said...” begins every criticism. This is just political correctness in its death throes.

What nonsense. Tell me, how can I mention details of which I do not know? If you think that that's suppression, then you must not know what the word "suppression" actually means. I never claimed to know about these "hundreds of successes" which you allege of Trump, but don't actually provide any evidence of. I told you what I do know, which is that all of these alleged successes are in fact failures relative to the amount of wealth he would have amassed if he had simply invested in Index Funds, which you yourself say is easy to do. So, explain to me why the smart thing to have done (if he's too incompetent to make a greater profit through the actual running of his business, which turned out to be true) wouldn't have been to invest in Index Funds. You haven't actually answered that, just dismissed it.

Of course you do not know. That’s not my fault. But I do apologize for accusing you for suppression.

And there is nothing wrong with dismissing counterfactuals.

All his critics have are word policing and word politics. “Trump said...” begins every criticism. This is just political correctness in its death throes. — NOS4A2

Sure. No-one criticized the policies Trump did implement at the southern border for example. Or the way he did replace all kinds of important agency personell with incompetent political allies.

The same policies that they refused to criticize under the last president. Some pictures of “children in cages” came from 2014, but they no less turned up in articles criticizing Trump.