It appears the going rate for quality contributions in this thread is copying and pasting news articles and signalling to each other our anti-trump bona fides, and then accusing opponents of peddling Fox News and breitbart talking points.

thought/believed — creativesoul

Stop doing that.

Don’t forget the high quality abuse and ridicule thrown at you. You can’t get that just anywhere.

Some of it was trite and badly written, but yours was good.

It appears that James Comey was rebuked by the IG report. In the end they declined to prosecute, but found he did break FBI rules.

In light of the upcoming IG report on FISA abuses, this raises a question. What other rules did Comey and his disgraced coterie break along the way?

Realise you're frequenting a website where people will use ad homs while debating nothing. And they all think they're capable of civilized debate. — Benkei

Indeed. No argument here. It still needs to be done.

I'm awaiting your word... your agreement... that we will both work from the standards of acceptable debate.

Do I have your word?

I’m not sure I can make such a promise given the political nature. I’m sure you’ll let me know if I run afoul. I can at least offer good faith.

That's good. I'm not sold on the sincerity. Forgive my skepticism.

The notion of "good faith" is much too vague.

Will you recognize and honor the rules of acceptable debate? They provide the framework for civilized discussion between participants. They allow reasoned discussion to happen. They help to foster an ability to compare/contrast opposing and/or contrasting opinions/statements/world-views. They eliminate overt agression and inevitably reveal covert(passive) aggression.

Do you care about meeting standards?
— creativesoul

How many more pages of his trolling do you need to convince you that he does not? — praxis

Bear with me...

You want to have a formal debate with no resolution, but with your arbitrary rules?

I’m not sold on your sincerity, your dismissal of my good intentions, nor your rigid idea of “acceptable debate”, whatever that means.

US official confirms that Trump tweeted out a picture from a classified intelligence briefing

:roll:

This being the same Donald Trump who called for Hillary Clinton to be locked up over the email controversy.

Why does Trump flirt with Putin and Kim, but he harasses Iran? Real question.

I’m not sold on your sincerity, your dismissal of my good intentions, nor your rigid idea of “acceptable debate”, whatever that means. — NOS4A2

You can easily review any portion of creativesoul’s posts and see his sincerity for yourself, as well as get an idea of what acceptable debate is. It strikes me as a bad faith statement to claim ignorance of what acceptable debate is, by the way.

Why does Trump flirt with Putin and Kim, but he harasses Iran? Real question. — frank

Iran is Muslim. Also Jared Kushner.

It’s a great picture. Of course, the president can declassify whatever he pleases.

It might be a geopolitical thing rather than a political thing, but that would be interesting to know.

I do not know your intentions. I didn't dismiss your good intentions. I'm skeptical - rightly so given your hesitance to give your word.

Hence, upfront... here in the beginning... I'm asking for your word. Good intentions and 'good faith' discussions are proven by following the rules of acceptable debate. I'm not making them up. I'm pointing them out and advocating for their use. Would you like a full list/description?

You entered into a debate here. Are you prepared to follow the rules of acceptable(civil) debate?

Do I have your word?

I’m not sure I can make such a promise given the political nature. — NOS4A2

What does the political nature of the discussion have to do with following the rules of debate?

It’s a great picture. Of course, the president can declassify whatever he pleases. — NOS4A2

Reminds me of Nixon's, "But when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".

Scary.

Poor creativesoul. He's always inviting people to a formal debate, but no one ever wants to debate him. :snicker:

That’s not true at all. Good faith has nothing to do with your “rules of acceptable debate”. Besides, they are not rules so much as they are arbitrary demands.

I do not give my word that I will follow some arbitrary rules, and conform my thought and speech to your rigid demands, which seem to be pulled from thin air. So please, begin or not.

Reminds me of Nixon's, "But when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".

Scary.

The president has every right, and I would even argue the duty, to classify what he wants.

I’ve never seen a formal debate without a structure and resolution, but only a list of a few fallacies that are strictly forbidden.

The president has every right, and I would even argue the duty, to classify what he wants. — NOS4A2

According to what, or who? Either way, that's a recipe for disaster. A healthy democracy requires checks and balances, not a dictator who can do what he likes.

That’s not true at all. — NOS4A2

What's not true at all?

What's not true at all? — creativesoul

That.

I’ve never seen a formal debate without a structure and resolution, but only a list of a few fallacies that are strictly forbidden — NOS4A2

If you know them, what's the hesitation? That list wasn't meant to be complete.

That’s not true at all. Good faith has nothing to do with your “rules of acceptable debate”.