If I gave the impression that all who oppose Trump hate him personally, then I retract it. But there are plenty for whom it fits. But just as you think “killary” is hateful so do I think “buffoon” is hateful, which I saw in one post made today. Both evidence simple personal animosity.So here’s that inept comparison again.
You can’t have the paradigm of “you all” for anti-Trump folks here, as if it’s a behemoth of unity in hatred…while also reserving for yourself the right to say, “Well, I never called Hillary names and we’re all different in our criticism of Hillary.”
How about you have the same standard? Doesn’t that sound fair instead of making one standard for you and a different standard for anti-Trump people?
Either all you anti-Hillary people are ONE, and you’re as guilty of calling her Killary as the ones who actually did…(and then I will gladly accept the guilt of anti-Trump people making fun of his orange spray tan)…
OR…
All anti-Trump folks are responsible for what they say, individually, about the man…and then you are released from the guilt of calling a woman who has never murdered a single person KILLARY.
The actual facts of the matter have been documented by me and others on this forum. The US did not sell uranium. That is a simple matter of fact that has been explained to you over and over again.How do you know it never occurred? You don’t know anything of the kind, of course.
As you know, I did not say “The U.S.” sold uranium to Russia. What was sold was controlling interest to the Russian atomic energy agency of a company that controlled 20% of U.S. uranium reserves.The actual facts of the matter have been documented by me and others on this forum. The US did not sell uranium. That is a simple matter of fact that has been explained to you over and over again.
But tell us this: why do you think ti occurred?
As I have said before, I will stop using the word as soon as the hateful speech stops.Maybe we should all try to raise the discourse a notch or two, and stop referring to political opponents as “haters”?
Please don’t play games parsing words, it’s not that clever.The actual facts of the matter have been documented by me and others on this forum. The US did not sell uranium. That is a simple matter of fact that has been explained to you over and over again.
But tell us this: why do you think ti occurred?
It doesn’t matter how many times it has been debunked, IF it isn’t on Fox News or Brietbart, it isn’t a fact.The actual facts of the matter have been documented by me and others on this forum. The US did not sell uranium. That is a simple matter of fact that has been explained to you over and over again.
But tell us this: why do you think ti occurred?
As you know that is not what I said. In fact the very quote in your post does does not state that. The issues is not some marginal differention between Russian adn a russian held company The issue whether or not uranium was sold.As you know, I did not say “The U.S.” sold uranium to Russia. What was sold was controlling interest to the Russian atomic energy agency of a company that controlled 20% of U.S. uranium reserves.
That is in error. No sale of uranium was made. Please correct your misstatements.… sale of American uranium to a Russian company.
It most certainly is not. The agreement does not allow for export of uranium from the US. This slaient fact has been reported over and over again on this forum.Please don’t play games parsing words, it’s not that clever.
The uranium deposits were sold to Rosatom (Russia’s nuclear agency).
Agreed that selling control of the deposits isn’t the same as selling refined uranium.
It is the stubborn insistence on not checking the facts - the reckless disregard for the truth - that is mind boggling.It doesn’t matter how many times it has been debunked, IF it isn’t on Fox News or Brietbart, it isn’t a fact.
I think your comparison is, again, inept.If I gave the impression that all who oppose Trump hate him personally, then I retract it. But there are plenty for whom it fits. But just as you think “killary” is hateful so do I think “buffoon” is hateful, which I saw in one post made today. Both evidence simple personal animosity.
So…If I gave the impression that all who oppose Trump hate him personally, then I retract it. But there are plenty for whom it fits. But just as you think “killary” is hateful so do I think “buffoon” is hateful, which I saw in one post made today. Both evidence simple personal animosity.
So very interesting, this. ^^You are assuming he didn’t believe it himself. He probably did. When virtually every intelligence service on earth believed it, why shouldn’t Powell?
And I’m not a Powell aficionado. But I think he’s more buffoon than he is anything else.
If I gave the impression that all who oppose Trump hate him personally, then I retract it. But there are plenty for whom it fits. But just as you think “killary” is hateful so do I think “buffoon” is hateful, which I saw in one post made today. Both evidence simple personal animosity.
And let me make this clear: I don’t have a problem, in theory, with someone calling Hillary “Killary”…AS LONG AS HE’S CONSISTENT, and is ok with someone calling Trump “Trumpkin”.You are assuming he didn’t believe it himself. He probably did. When virtually every intelligence service on earth believed it, why shouldn’t Powell?
And I’m not a Powell aficionado. But I think he’s more buffoon than he is anything else.
Isn’t Canada supporting euthenasia now?Well you see that’s the problem with private insurance, it could never be truly affordable at age 65 as the risk goes up as we get older. So either the young subsidize the old, or the premiums for the old go through the roof.
With the Canadian single-payer system, the wealthier do pay more for health care as they generally pay more taxes.** Far better that we subsidize each other through taxes, than having the young and healthy resent subsidizing the sick, poor and old, which hardly builds a culture of life where the old and sick are afforded the dignity and respect they deserve.
In laissez-faire capitalist health care, the old simply become a burden resented by the young and healthy.**
Whoa. You cannot just say “it is OK to make serious allegations as long as they cannot be proven to be false.” No. It is an offense against the truth to make serious allegations that will harm someone’s reputation, let alone to talk about them as if they had been proven, unless the evidence that the allegations ARE true is very good. It is OK to say “this doesn’t look good” or “this association makes it reasonable to wonder if there is a connection” and so on. We don’t have to go to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard instead of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, either, provided we keep the standard we used in mind. We cannot make the jump to “they look guilty, so they must be guilty.” That is a jump to rash judgement.How do you know it never occurred? You don’t know anything of the kind, of course.
That’s tough to do when your ratings and support are very high in Russia.I will support Trump as long as he puts the U.S.A. before Russia and Putin.
I certainly am astonished and incredulous at Catholic Trump supporters, to be sure. It does not make sense to me.I don’t think the Trump haters really understand Trump supporters now, any more than they did during the election.
Whether the President is or is not popular in Russia is of no account in and of itself. If he is popular for reasons that are no betrayal of the US, there is no reason we should not want him to be well-liked.That’s tough to do when your ratings and support are very high in Russia.
pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/
Let’s be serious about this.Whoa. You cannot just say “it is OK to make serious allegations as long as they cannot be proven to be false.” No. It is an offense against the truth to make serious allegations that will harm someone’s reputation, let alone to talk about them as if they had been proven, unless the evidence that the allegations ARE true is very good. It is OK to say “this doesn’t look good” or “this association makes it reasonable to wonder if there is a connection” and so on. We don’t have to go to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard instead of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, either, provided we keep the standard we used in mind. We cannot make the jump to “they look guilty, so they must be guilty.” That is a jump to rash judgement.
When dealing with someone else’s reputation, the rule is “first, do no harm.” If it is not known to be true and it is not necessary to say it, don’t say it. Yes, when you are talking about someone in public office, someone you have to choose to support or not or to trust or not, you have a legitimate reason to discuss whether they are trustworthy and believable. They signed up for that; that is OK. No one in public office is entitled to your trust, that has to be earned with you, but the discussion still has to be kept fair. We do not have carte blanche to throw all consideration about respecting the demands of truth out the window just because we’re talking about politics and politicians. That’s hard, I fail in that myself sometimes, but that really is the standard we ought to have.
There is, by the way, no reason in the world to drag anyone else’s reputation in when discussing what current office holders are doing, except perhaps to argue that some certain deadline or amount of accomplishment is not realistic. Proving someone else is guilty of misconduct is not evidence that the conduct of the parties actually under discussion is OK.
If our candidate tells a lie, it is a lie. It is a falsehood. Trying to pass off falsehoods as the truth doesn’t become OK because of the misdirection that “his or her opponent lies, too.” No, that just means that they’re both guilty, not that they’re both placed in an alternative moral universe that is beyond accusation!
The time to bring charges of offenses against the truth against other candidates is when they say something false. It should not be dragged in as clothing to cover up an opponent’s lying.