Bernie is amazing

All his critics have are word policing and word politics. — NOS4A2

Not to mention all the campaign promises he failed to deliver on. Oh wait, those promises were just words. Okay, I see your point.

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

Nonsense. Words are extremely important. Presidents can start wars and tank economies with words.

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.

Obama separated immigrant children from adults if it was suspected the child was in danger. It was not a blanket policy.

Trump/Sessions/Miller (whoever was the brainchild) separated kids as a deterrent to other would-be immigrants. They came right out and said so. The policy was so abhorrent to Americans, they had to stop doing it.

Pointing out failed promises would be a legitimate criticism, but a simple glance of the news over the past few years show little of such criticism, and more sensationalism regarding tweets and statements.

That is at least a legitimate criticism. But there is no point in conflating immigrants in general with illegal immigrants in particular. The policies pertain to illegal immigrants only.

"The policies pertain to illegal immigrants only."

Are you sure? Were any asylum-seekers' kids taken from them?

Nonsense. Words are extremely important. Presidents can start wars and tank economies with words.

People tend to overestimate the power of words is my only point. The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword is a common superstition.

Are you sure? Were any asylum-seekers' kids taken from them?

I’m not sure. But seeking asylum doesn’t necessarily entail hopping over the border illegally.

Pointing out failed promises would be a legitimate criticism, but a simple glance of the news over the past few years show little of such criticism, and more sensationalism regarding tweets and statements. — NOS4A2

I guess you don’t realize that anyone can do an internet search and see how false this claim is for themselves.

And about Trump tweets and sensationalism, that is the entire point of his tweets, is it not? Everyone knows they’re sensationalized crap. You seem to imply this yourself.

And how can you criticize others for doing what he does on a daily basis? Did AOC, for example, actually say that the American people were trash?

I guess you don’t realize that anyone can do an internet search and see how false this claim is for themselves.

And about Trump tweets and sensationalism, that is the entire point of his tweets, is it not? Everyone knows they’re sensationalized crap. You seem to imply this yourself.

No internet search will compare legitimate criticism to the sensationalism, so that’s a false claim.

Not everyone. The house recently condemned a tweet in Congress.

No internet search will compare legitimate criticism to the sensationalism, so that’s a false claim. — NOS4A2

You claim that there is “little” criticism of Trump failing to fulfill campaign promises over the last few years. Anyone with access to the internet can see how false this claim is.

Your perspective is probably skewed from only reading news from Brietbart or similar “news” outlets.

I claimed “simple glance of the news over the past few years show little of such criticism, and more sensationalism regarding tweets and statements.”

It’s weird, yet quite typical, that you’d leave the rest of my sentence out. Perhaps I should have said “less” instead of little, or perhaps I might clarify, but I don’t expect any good faith here.

Your perspective is probably skewed from only reading news from Brietbart or similar “news” outlets.

Filling in the blanks with fantasy.

"People tend to overestimate the power of words is my only point. The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword is a common superstition."

The President is the most powerful person in the world, with the ability to end humanity. Three of our geo-political foes are also nuclear powers.

The wrong words can end the human race. That's not hyperbole. We came awfully close in 1962. Kennedy and Khrushchev went right to the brink. If Khrushchev hadn't written that Oct 26 letter, who knows what could have happened.

Perhaps I should have said “less” instead of little, — NOS4A2

You should have said ‘less’ if that’s the claim you wanted to make, yes, obviously.

Hence the danger of word superstition. But it wasn’t the words that would have led to mutual self-destruction, but the choices and decisions of the ones pushing the button.

You should have said ‘less’ if that’s the claim you wanted to make, yes, obviously.

I don’t need to conform to your understanding. The meaning is quite clear so long as you refuse to remove half the argument.

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. — NOS4A2

I fail to see how what the last administration did is relevant. You are moving the goalposts.

Words are simply verbalized thoughts. Thought precedes action. The wrong words (thoughts) can trigger the wrong actions. In the case of peons like us, it doesn't matter. In the case of the President, who has command over our nuclear arsenal, words become extremely, extremely important.

I can't emphasize enough how irresponsible it is for the leader of a nuclear power to be careless with his words. It should scare the hell out of you.

Of course you do not know. That’s not my fault. — NOS4A2

I'm not blaming you for the fact that I don't care enough to explore in depth the business career of Donald Trump. But it is your fault if you're not willing or able to actually defend your own remarks about his alleged success in that regard.

But I do apologize for accusing you for suppression. — NOS4A2

Well thanks.

And there is nothing wrong with dismissing counterfactuals. — NOS4A2

Yes there is. There's only nothing wrong with someone doing that if they have a good enough reason for doing so.

I fail to see how what the last administration did is relevant. You are moving the goalposts.

The policies are not much different, but one was fawned over while this one is demonized.

Words trigger nothing, because they do not have the capacity to move matter. That’s sorcery.

I'm not blaming you for the fact that I don't care enough to explore in depth the business career of Donald Trump. But it is your fault if you're not willing or able to actually defend your own remarks about his alleged success in that regard.

Do you treat the news with the same skepticism? Because I did not inform you about the casino.

Do you treat the news with the same skepticism? Because I did not inform you about the casino. — NOS4A2

The level of my scepticism depends on the source. I can't remember where I heard the casino thing, to be honest. Why? Do you dispute it? Do you have a credible source which refutes it?

To give you some idea, I'm the least sceptical with a news organisation like BBC News, and I'm most sceptical with an absolute joke like the propaganda machine thinly veiled under the guise of a news organisation that is Fox News.

The level of scepticism depends on the source. I can't remember where I heard the casino thing, to be honest. Why? Do you dispute it? Do you have a credible source which refutes it?

To give you some idea, I'm the least sceptical with a news organisation like BBC News, and I'm most sceptical with an absolute joke like the propaganda machine thinly veiled under the guise of a news organisation that is Fox News.

No, it’s a fact. He’s actually filed bankruptcy for his casinos several times.

BBC is a state-run news agency. That alone warrants skepticism.

"Words trigger nothing, because they do not have the capacity to move matter. That’s sorcery."

If words don't trigger anything, why is it illegal to make death threats? Or yell "fire" in a theater?

Try again.

It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre. The principle in current first amendment theory is “immanent lawless action”.

Nonetheless, It’s not the words, but the law that makes them illegal.

Try again.

No, it’s a fact. He’s actually filed bankruptcy for his casinos several times. — NOS4A2

Ok. It's just that it seemed as though you were suggesting something more than that: perhaps that I should be more sceptical about the casino thing.

BBC is a state-run news agency. That alone warrants skepticism. — NOS4A2

No, the state doesn't run it, the Director-General of the BBC does. It's an independently run, but publicly funded, news organisation.

It's nothing like KCNA, for example. They couldn't be further apart.

You should have said ‘less’ if that’s the claim you wanted to make, yes, obviously.

I don’t need to conform to your understanding. The meaning is quite clear so long as you refuse to remove half the argument. — NOS4A2

That you’re a poor critical thinker is not a surprise to anyone on this forum. It’s senseless to insinuate that critical thinking is not appropriate or valued here.

That you’re a poor critical thinker is not a surprise to anyone on this forum. It’s senseless to insinuate that critical thinking is not appropriate or valued here.

The bad faith, straw men and ad homs do not help your case.