You're making a hand-waving dismissal, since you've falsified none of the claims made by fact checkers. Trump has hypnotized you into believing everything he says. Facts are what Trump tells you they are. Scary.
He also said “Maybe you should look up the difference between a lie and something said with tongue in cheek”, which is suspiciously but expectantly missing. That’s what I said “exactly” to. — NOS4A2
I provided a link to a fact-checking site, and this provides a rational justification for my beliefs about Trump. What's your rational justification for dismissing all the analyzed untruths it reports?Telling yourself little fantasies like that is the biggest hand wave — NOS4A2
Do you seriously believe that your 'arguments' here("counterpoints" is a better description) are acceptable?
I don’t care whether you accept them or not. — NOS4A2
Here's an interesting thing that Trump tweeted today:
The New FoxNews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!
Wow! Even Trump believes Fox worked for him, and thinks that's the way it should be!
Kudos to Fox for showing signs of independence. — Relativist
You said it was false to suggest Trump tells many untruths. Here's what you said:I haven’t disputed any of your links. — NOS4A2
— NOS4A2
Yes, it’s called card-stacking.Are you claiming it's false to claim he tells so many untruths - that it's all partisan distortion? ! — Relativist
So....telling the truth is just silly "political correctness", and valuing truth is "puritanical". LOL! Oh, the twists and turns Trump-devotees must make!What I have repeatedly dismissed is your uncompromising, puritanical political correctness, energy which might be better served if it was focused on injustice and tyranny instead of tweets. — NOS4A2
There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding. I did not ask if you care if I accept the counterpoints you've provided here. I asked if you thought/believed that they are/were acceptable - as in relevant, reasonable, valid, and/or otherwise 'rational' - replies to the remarks preceding them?
Off the top of my head, I remember at least a couple that made no sense in light of what they were supposed to be replying to.
Anti-Trumpist mental gymnastics on full display. — NOS4A2
You're going in circles. You also said:I was affirming that, yes, it’s all a partisan distortion — NOS4A2
...who wants to keep getting dirty playing with this piece of slime. — tim wood
It's not silly to ask someone if they actually believe that what they are saying is acceptable. Normally, I grant the sincerity of a speaker. Here, I've good reason to suspect something else is driving the responses. As mentioned earlier... some of the replies make no sense in light of what preceded them. I would like to discuss those, and will... with or without your participation. Offering you a chance to defend your claims is the first step.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.