It’s toxic because it’s full of mud slinging and name calling. I myself am guilty of name calling the POTUS, but at least I never said that all Republicans or Trumplicans are brainswashed dumdums who hate this country, unlike some posters here who keep writing something along the same lines about all Democrats.
I’ve said multiple times that there is an intellectual discussion to be had, but most of the time that is not what happens here. Where I sit, @shinobi is the biggest offender, as many of his posts are intended to offend rather than to reason, and he invites reactions that also offend rather than reason. @glitch99 appears to make an effort to bring some form of reason, but even he mostly does this to counter anti-Trump posts/news/opinions, much less so to counter pro-Trump posts/news/opinions even when they are similarly flawed.
I do not understand what you are talking about. I meant that as readers of this thread our minds were primed to think of “SS” as the German army unit, because we previously discussed Nazis in this thread. I was referring to psychological priming, in case you were thinking of something else. So from where I sit, your response to the quote ‘our minds were “primed”’ makes no sense to me.
No, I do not.
Surely. Of course he personally was not threatening to start one, but he implied multiple times that we may already be in one. I was responding to glitch99’s post where he wrote, and I quote: “so many of you have make is so clear that should Trump win, the rioting we’ve seen thus far will only be the tip of the ice berg”. I think yes, the rioting is likely to get worse exactly because the same civil war that shinobi has been talking about since the beginning of the thread may indeed be already going on. I think my response was spot-on given that context.
They disappeared the original statement because it was incorrect, and they issued a revision here:
The original statement asserted that all 9 of the discarded ballots were for Trump, but in reality 7 were for Trump while the contents of the other 2 are unknown at this time – they were re-sealed, so I’m guessing a process must be followed to unseal them.
I’ve wondered a bit about where you, Honkinggoose, are located. You miss a few days & then you appear (out of the blue) with beautiful, inciteful, very thoughtful ideas. You talk about working all night & that can screw the old bod up every time. Just like traveling to India, it’s happened to me a few times. But to do this type of occupation weekly, the pay must be substantial.
I think we all have many views here, but tend to be about 1/2 voices toward both or either side. Even when touched to the core against some of the opposite political viewpoints, we can bounce back with a kind comment. ( sometimes but not often)
Our folks here are so talented. Specialist on all topics. Money advice, buying cars, selling items, purchasing a home, food purchasing, & the list goes on & on.
Where is this alleged pro-Trump news? There’s as much of that as there is pro-Biden news (there ain’t none, it’s all attacks, both ways).
I’ve “countered” the baseless attacks on Biden as well; namely about haphazardly diagnosing mental health conditions and how he’s just pandering to the far left for votes (he’s not their flag carrier).
Yes you have, which is why I wrote “mostly”. IMO you’re not always fair in dealing out your truth to both sides. I’m not in the mood to go back hundreds of posts now, but I’ll try to illustrate my point if I see this again in the near future.
One obvious example fresh in my mind, is that your insistence on Trump being Trump as something normal and acceptable is itself slanted. You allow him excuses that I think he does not necessarily deserve, and we would not have allowed such excuses (handicaps?) for past presidents. A lot of the criticism and attacks on Trump from the left may appear exaggerated / twisted / manipulated / manipulative if you accept the handicap. But if you remove or don’t accept the handicap, the attacks become legitimate. I may be getting a little abstract here and will try to provide more concrete and concise examples later on.
Why is it a baited question? This question is no different than asking the nominee if they will accept the results of the election. That was asked before, IIRC in the Bush v Gore election. I remember both of them immediately answering in the positive, putting the country first. Trump has seeded doubt in the outcomes of both the 2016 and the 2020 election and has refused to answer the question. A refusal to answer the question is no different than answering in the negative. It is only logical to conclude from this and many other examples that Trump does what’s best for Trump, not what’s best for the country. And please note that I’m not stating that any specific outcome of the election is best for the country, but rather that the assurance of a peaceful transition, regardless of the outcome, is what’s best for the country.
The headline made no such claim. Here’s the headline:
Trump’s refusal to commit to peaceful transfer of power provokes outrage, rebukes on Capitol Hill
The article provided examples of outrage and rebuke by Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Using your own logic, the auto-injected language (which comes from the web page metadata and can be found in the source) did not claim explicit condemnation from Republicans (in fact the article mentioned that there was no explicit condemnation). Only an implicit condemnation. If you accept my explanation that not answering the question about peaceful transition of power OR acceptance of the election results is equivalent to answering such a question in the negative, then the statements provided by Republicans in the positive are an implied rebuke and condemnation: “without that, there is Belarus” !
I’m glad we’ve identified the root of the problem. You disagree with the premise, so you think the article’s byline is not supported by the article contents. This is at the root of a few other disagreements as well.
I fully believe that the assurance of a peaceful transition regarding of the outcome is of paramount importance. It’s the difference between calling for peace and inciting conflict. Not agreeing to this right away by avoiding the answer is the same as disagreeing explicitly in my view, and probably in the view of many, if not most Americans.
The byline is supported by the contents if you sat where I’m sitting.
I fully believe that the assurance of a peaceful transition only serves the purpose of making you feel a little better about the situation, temporarily calming your irrational fear that “he’s never going to go away”.
All that really matters is that there is a peaceful transition. What anyone says at this point is meaningless to that end, and only mongers fear in the interim.
Perhaps to frame it in a way you can better understand - if Trump were to give his assurance about this, it could just as easily be subterfuge to ensure that you’re blindsided when that day comes…
So just a small one? It only involves the Republican members of the Senate and the tiny Justice Department. It must have less than 100,000 on it’s payroll. I understand that to a Democrat, that’s probably a small number, when they’re used to spending trillions of someone else’s money.
======Scriptaid here========
Presuming the Bender and Argy are the same person, that’s Bender/Argyll - 4 and Honkinggoose 0 on the nazi reference scoreboard. You just have no sensitivity.
ETA: Okay, let’s try that again. I still don’t know why women are so interested in where I live, but I’m in the area of what used to be the Charlotte parking lot. Since the Chinese virus, we learned that it is actually a series of roads and thruways.
As for my sleeping habits, which lots of women also want to know about, I do IT work and none of it is in Charlotte. Most of my clients are in the Eastern time zone, but one is in the Mountain time zone and one in the Pacific. Wheh it’s time to implement some of my work, it is best to do it during off-hours, which isn’t a big deal for the East coasters. It can be problematic for the others.
There is lots of talent on this board, and I’ve learned lots of things. I’m no specialist in any of it. I do have ̶a̶g̶e̶ experience on my side.
Everything except the last paragraph should be read with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
It’s internet chat lingo for crying/complaining/whining/etc… it’s based on how the letters make a sort of crying face in chat Q_Q. Ask your kids especially if they are gamers.
I apparently didn’t state my question clearly. I wondered why you are finding it toxic n͟o͟w͟, instead of 3, 6 or 9 months ago. Instead of answering what I thought was a pretty clear question, you took the occasion to pat yourself on the back, take a swipe at @shinobi and a side swipe at @glitch99.
What pro-Trump posts? I haven’t seen a pro-Trump news post until I got fed up and posted a few within the last 48 hours. But don’t be scared, I will wear a mask as I post more.
Since I can’t recall you doing it before, I will ask instead of accusing. Are you playing dumb, or do you really not get it? If the latter, I will explain it in painstaking detail.
So “implying that we may be in a war” = “threatening” war. Yikes!
So following your “spot-on” lack of logic, you are threatening a riot? In case you’re confused, you’ve conflated “implying we’re in a war” with “threatening a war” Even worse, you thing it’s spot-on. I think it’s a spot-on example of the failure of schools today.
===I hope these dividers make it less confusing for you===
So we can’t criticize Comrade Joe because he has dementia? Well, naturally I will have to vote for him.
=====Again, sorry for confusing you, but these lines should help ====
I’ll try to not quote the whole message, but just the most messed up parts.
It’s a baited question for at least two reasons, although the ignorance of the reporter may at least count for one of them.
Win, lose, or draw - why the heck would President Trump consider transferring power if he won? Why am I having to explain that to anyone who can read … unless they have blinders on.
How can President Trump guarantee what Joseph (I didn’t blackmail them) Biden will do? In his condition, Joe may decide to jump in the reflecting pool when it’s time to get the keys to the castle.
This doesn’t apply to the baited question, but it’s a bonus answer because ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶ I’m so generous. This is really why President Trump doesn’t answer the question. President Trump doesn’t consider losing. He is a positive thinker - I realize that is anathema to most Democrats/Fascists/Communists/Socialists/etc., but it can be a very productive (I know, same comment as positive thinker) method of working and living one’s life. Talking about what would happen if he didn’t win is akin to admitting defeat. I know you don’t get it, but it’s true.
If you see no difference, I’m at a loss. Look at both questions, side by side. Do you really not see a difference?
Ahem, who seeded doubts about the 2016 election? Who shouted, screamed, whined, foot-stomped, yelled, cursed, and impeached over supposed collusion, when there wasn’t a shred of evidence? Who continues to do it each and every day? Granted it may not be a loud roar, if the current “Trump did x, he is the devil” mantra doesn’t fold into itself, but it is still there, despite all evidence to the contrary. Who in 2015/2016 laughed at, then candidate Trump, when he said he thought his campaign offices were bugged? It took a few years, but we found out that the bug was a spy, planted their by the Justice department of President Obama. Who drooled, slurred, cried, and whined about the election for years (4 and counting)? In fact, she has claimed he will rig this election, as have many Democrats. So, who has seeded the doubt?
Wow! “Scripta’s rules - makin em up as I go”. Rather than comment on the illogic, we’ll try a different tact. Can I make this presumption about all of the unanswered questions I’ve asked you?
Maybe I should have pointed out the lack of logic.
Non-sequitur … Vger is looped in illogic. That happens frequently when one loses his/her creator.
It is assured. It always has been, and it’s only been asked of President Donald Trump. I can’t recall any other president being asked that question, particularly His Holiness Imam Obama.
I really wasn’t trying to quote the whole post, but just the most egregious parts.
=====This line divides my responses to your various messages=====
Yahoogyll description for Trump:
Yahoogyll description for Comrade Joe (I didn’t blackmail anybody) Biden.
On Capitol Hill, the Party Comrade Joseph Biden thoughtfully declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he win the election. Democrats and Republicans alike rejoiced at the degree of intellectualalit displayed by Party Comrade Joseph Biden. There was only once dissenter who fell silent after hearing a gunshot. Proletariat Rejoice! … or else.
======Another divider, just for you========
Jeez, who’s been filling your noodle? Has this question ever been asked of another president? No, you say, or I can’t remember, you say. It is, in fact, a micro-aggression against President Donald MAGA Trump.
Here is simple enough question that should help you to understand, because I’m all about being helpful. Would you have been in agreement if former President Obama were asked if he would welcome an inventory of the White House contents, including silver and china, upon his departure?
Lemme answer for you. No, you would not think it appropriate. You would think it offensive. As offensive as you demanding President Trump answer the “bait” question.
======I’m going to start calling these Scriptaids =======
I guess our folks cover most of the US. So we have the goose country taken care of, which I never suspected. A southern gentleman!
I think we also have the age area also under control. But, really thinking about our poster’s, the aged are certainly more informed politically. I believe we will be on the winning side of this election.
I find this hard to believe. Chris did not shy away from asking Trump tough questions in their July interview on coronavirus pandemic handling and pushing back at times on some of the questionable answers and data. Not as much as Swan but still. So considering that he’s working at Fox, I don’t think he’ll shy away from going after Biden either if he’s not answering clearly or giving BS answers, nor should he. I think he’s very experienced so he’ll know what his role is as moderator (aka hopefully not a carpet for either side).
