Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Donald Trump - 'Phony Emoluments Clause'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    That what? It’s only an issue because you hate Trump, but it wasn’t an issue in 2004? Politicians have been making millions, for years, off the government dime and from foreign sources. Why do you suddenly care now? Have you cared about those who become millionaires while in office or shortly after leaving?
    As I've said before, it's not the billionaire who became a politician that worries me, it's the politicians who became millionaire's while in office.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
      I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries. Curious that you only care now and go forth with scant evidence this is even going on. The more likely reason Trump is so careful about his tax returns is they would reveal he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims to be.
      pix - you are wrong about why I care. It's not 'the man' it is 'the abuse of the office' that comes along with the man. It's not him making money. Everybody gains wealth from having been president - if nothing else from the fees they can charge for speaking engagements after it's over. The issue of emoluments is the issue of bribery or the abuse of power. There are legitimate reasons for these laws, and your excusing them goes more to your lack of moral compass than anything else. Especially since you justification boils down to 'but everybody else did it'. (That is not an admission 'everybody else did it', it is just the excuse you are using).

      I have never before these three years of the Trump debasement of american values seen so many adult people that ostensibly stand for upright moral value excuse immoral behavior with the excuse 'somebody else did it first'. It's like once Trump came along conservatives turned into school children in so far as their capacity to express or act on moral values.


      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        pix - you are wrong about why I care. It's not 'the man' it is 'the abuse of the office' that comes along with the man. It's not him making money. Everybody gains wealth from having been president - if nothing else from the fees they can charge for speaking engagements after it's over. The issue of emoluments is the issue of bribery or the abuse of power. There are legitimate reasons for these laws, and your excusing them goes more to your lack of moral compass than anything else. Especially since you justification boils down to 'but everybody else did it'. (That is not an admission 'everybody else did it', it is just the excuse you are using).

        I have never before these three years of the Trump debasement of american values seen so many adult people that ostensibly stand for upright moral value excuse immoral behavior with the excuse 'somebody else did it first'. It's like once Trump came along conservatives turned into school children in so far as their capacity to express or act on moral values.


        Jim
        The evidence of this bribery going on is...

        Max already did a good job of showing your source as quote mined, click bait. Yet again, you could make good points if you were not so emotionally invested in the idea that Trump is the Antichrist. Attack me all you want Jim, you’re just helping Trump win in 2020 because to you it’s either:

        1. You’re too dumb to understand.
        2. You’re too evil to care.

        You’re way or the highway. Just like Jorge and his YECism. There is no, “ Let’s just disagree on this issue” on all things Trump, you’re either stupid or a psychopath, no other possibility.

        Second, my argument is that Democrats only care when Republicans are doing it or they think they are. They don’t care when they rake in the cash. Look at the high speed rail, in California, for a perfect example of lots of politicians getting rich from that failed, bumbled, project.
        Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019, 09:38 AM.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          As I've said before, it's not the billionaire who became a politician that worries me, it's the politicians who became millionaire's while in office.
          Just read about the high speed rail project, in California.
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
            The evidence of this bribery going on is...

            Max already did a good job of showing your source as quote mined, click bait. Yet again, you could make good points if you were not so emotionally invested in the idea that Trump is the Antichrist.
            Never once referred to Trump as an 'anti-Christ'. You made that up all on your own.

            Attack me all you want Jim, you’re just helping Trump win in 2020 because to you it’s either:
            Your lack of moral compass when it comes to all things Trump is an observation based on your words. It is not meant to be an attack pix. I would hope it would cause you to reconsider many of your positions on this matter.

            1. You’re too dumb to understand.
            2. You’re too evil to care.
            Wrong, but it takes a very black/white borderlinish mindset to get that out of my comments.

            You’re way or the highway. Just like Jorge and his YECism. There is no, “ Let’s just disagree on this issue” on all things Trump, you’re either stupid or a psychopath, no other possibility.
            Actually pix, I've invited you many times to steer clear of the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' that make up most of your posts to me. Once you actually did it and we has a somewhat civil conversation. But for some reason you reverted almost immediately. But no, it is not 'my way or the highway'. However, when something involves clearly immoral behavior, it is hard to argue against the side that says 'hey, that is immoral behavior' unless you can show either the behavior didn't actually happen, or that the perception of what happened is somehow skewed. That is harder that just writing a paragraph if negative adjectives, yes, and perhaps less satisfying emotionally, but it is the only legitimate sort of response to make, and the only kind that has any chance of actually accomplishing something in the arena of ideas and opinions.

            Second, my argument is that Democrats only care when Republicans are doing it or they think they are. They don’t care when they rake in the cash. Look at the high speed rail, in California, for a perfect example of lots of politicians getting rich from that failed, bumbled, project.
            There you could potentially have a point. What you need to do first though is separate out the legitimate sources of income from the illegitimate ones. When we are talking about emoluments, we are talking about income that carries with it the potential of a bribe and/or obligation. If Donald Trump owned an auto factory, then there would be no issue with him getting a percentage of the profits as a president. But if he started involving that auto factory in contracts with middle eastern countries for armored cars, then he'd be crossing the line.

            So you argument can't be that 'they got rich after being president', or even 'while being president' (though that is more problematic). You would need to show that former presidents violated the emoluments clause in some analogous fashion to how Trump has. And there I think you are going to have a problem - but I could be wrong, and feel free to try to make that case. You'll find my responses will take on a very different character if you move away from the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' to more substantive fare, just like they did the last time you attempted to take that route.

            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-22-2019, 10:01 AM.
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #21
              It would be helpful, before chastising on this topic, to have a fuller exposure to and understanding of Trump's statements. He has consistently painted himself as a victim of Democrats and media regarding the use of his properties, especially the use of Trump International in DC and other properties by foreign diplomats and governments.

              It's fine not keeping up with everything Trump does and says (it's exhausting, who would want to?) but his rhetoric yesterday about the Emoluments Clause is exactly in line with his "defense" of profiting off his properties (and, yeah, exposure is profiting, too) in the past. And this doesn't even touch the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent by Trump's golf outings to his private resorts.

              In short: when the President starts whining about the "phony Emoluments Clause", probably best to not side with the President unless you're sure he's got an airtight case.

              --Sam

              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              What's the definition of 'rage'?

              You hand-waved away that piece of anti-Trump media spin, and now you're drooling over another piece of media hype with no actual substance.



              1) The clips of Trump speaking lack the complete context - we don't hear the questions he was (apparently) answering. We don't know what was said in that lead to the start of the clip, and there's another section - right before the money quote - also missing.

              2) The headline is "Trump claims he's the victim of 'phony emoluments clause". Trump doesn't appear to say that he is a victim at all. So that's media spin at best and an outright lie at worst.

              3) What he does say is:

              (a) describe the benefits of using the facility (amenities, close to airport, benefits to local economy etc). Whether these points are true or not is irrelevant to the 'phony emoluments' question.

              (b) Say that "the Democrats went crazy. Even though I would have done it free, saved the country a lot of money." Hence he is not seeking to profit from the resort hosting the summit (actually he would be out of pocket, he would be giving free the use of his commercial property for a government activity).

              (c) argue that the (Democrats?) claim that he'll get promotion (i.e. publicity) is irrelevant since he already gets a lot of promotion (the most in the world)

              (d) the video cuts out a part (about 0:54) and resumes with Trump saying:

              "I don't think you people {gesturing to his interviewers} with this phony emoluments clause - {change of topic} and by the way I would say that it's cost me from 2 to 5 billion dollars to be President, and that's OK, between what I lose and what I could have made. I could have made a fortune if I just ran my business, I was doing it really well {partially unclear}, I have a great business..."


              Conclusion

              (1) Trump clearly says that he would have given the use of the resort for free (see (b) above) BEFORE any mention of the emoluments clause.


              (2) The emolument clause was introduced into the interview by someone else (the journalists presumably). That (crucial) part is not on the clip, oddly.
              It's clear from the clip that Trump is responding to something someone else said - someone else brought up the emoluments clause as an issue, and he's saying that it's a non-issue.
              The money cite of Trump is a quote-mine. We don't know the preceding context, and he immediately changes to another topic.


              (3) Trump dismisses their raising it as a concern (since he has already said that he would not receive any benefit from the summit)


              (4) Nowhere does he 'claim to be a victim'. That is a lie, AFAICT. It's an attempt to make it look like Trump rides roughshod over the law, when in fact, he doesn't at all.


              (5) Nowhere does he say, or imply that he doesn't care about the emoluments clause. His argument seems to be that it doesn't apply (since he would not have been receiving anything). Note that he has decided that the summit will not be at his resort, so he cannot be breaking the clause (in this instance at least).






              Jim, this is another example of you getting sucked in by a clickbait headline when the actual content doesn't support the anti-Trump narrative in the story. Notably, the headline is untrue (no claim of being a victim); and the crucial quote is lacking context both before and after, thus a quotemine.
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                I see a lot of ranting, but people have been buying presidents for centuries.
                Seems pretty cynical and disqualifies the person making the argument from ethical discussions.
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Never once referred to Trump as an 'anti-Christ'. You made that up all on your own.
                  You don’t have to say it to make it obvious what you believe. You believe Trump is the worst person to ever exist and anyone that dares to disagree with you is either too stupid to see what you see or too evil to care. Sounds like you’re describing the Antichrist to me. Rather you admit it or not.

                  Your lack of moral compass when it comes to all things Trump is an observation based on your words. It is not meant to be an attack pix. I would hope it would cause you to reconsider many of your positions on this matter.
                  And yet, I’m critical of many things he does or says and have expressed that opinion, several times over, in several post and responses to you (and even in this very thread). Yet, you ignore that and bear false witness against me because I don’t accept your opinion that Trump is the most evil person that has ever existed. This is why Trump won in 2016 and why he may win in 2020 too. It’s your way or the highway, you must believe Trump is the most evil person, that has ever existed or you’re too stupid to understand or too evil to care. Like I said, you’re the Jorge of Civics.

                  Wrong, but it takes a very black/white borderlinish mindset to get that out of my comments.
                  No it isn’t. You’re just too blinded by rage and anger to see you becoming what you fear. A closed minded fool incapable of thinking in terms other than black/white. If that’s wrong, show me a single example of you not calling anyone that dares to disagree with you about Trump, not dumb or saying their immoral/evil. You can’t, can you? It’s Jim’s way or the highway, no other way.


                  Actually pix, I've invited you many times to steer clear of the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' that make up most of your posts to me. Once you actually did it and we has a somewhat civil conversation. But for some reason you reverted almost immediately. But no, it is not 'my way or the highway'. However, when something involves clearly immoral behavior, it is hard to argue against the side that says 'hey, that is immoral behavior' unless you can show either the behavior didn't actually happen, or that the perception of what happened is somehow skewed. That is harder that just writing a paragraph if negative adjectives, yes, and perhaps less satisfying emotionally, but it is the only legitimate sort of response to make, and the only kind that has any chance of actually accomplishing something in the arena of ideas and opinions.
                  One can’t stay away from the obvious, you’re biased and it’s as plain as the nose on your face. Think that’s wrong, show me a single case showing otherwise. Bet you can’t.

                  There you could potentially have a point. What you need to do first though is separate out the legitimate sources of income from the illegitimate ones. When we are talking about emoluments, we are talking about income that carries with it the potential of a bribe and/or obligation. If Donald Trump owned an auto factory, then there would be no issue with him getting a percentage of the profits as a president. But if he started involving that auto factory in contracts with middle eastern countries for armored cars, then he'd be crossing the line.
                  Was Trump the owner an international business before he was president? Yes or no? Is the Trump corporation suppose to suspend all international hotels and developments just because Trump became president? Sorry, but this is America and not the USSR, you made the charge and it’s your job to prove your assertion, not mine to disprove it. Innocent till proven guilty, maybe you’ve heard of that concept before? A soundbite, click bate article, and assertion isn’t evidence of a crime. What happened to you? You used to source your stuff and back it up before you went all Jorge around here.

                  So you argument can't be that 'they got rich after being president', or even 'while being president' (though that is more problematic). You would need to show that former presidents violated the emoluments clause in some analogous fashion to how Trump has. And there I think you are going to have a problem - but I could be wrong, and feel free to try to make that case. You'll find my responses will take on a very different character if you move away from the 'paragraphs of negative adjectives' to more substantive fare, just like they did the last time you attempted to take that route.
                  You haven’t offered up any evidence to back your claim. Max did a great job of showing your article as clickbait nonsense. Do your work instead of making assertions and expecting others to debunk your bald assertions.
                  Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 10-22-2019, 10:43 AM.
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    It would be helpful, before chastising on this topic, to have a fuller exposure to and understanding of Trump's statements. He has consistently painted himself as a victim of Democrats and media regarding the use of his properties, especially the use of Trump International in DC and other properties by foreign diplomats and governments.

                    It's fine not keeping up with everything Trump does and says (it's exhausting, who would want to?) but his rhetoric yesterday about the Emoluments Clause is exactly in line with his "defense" of profiting off his properties (and, yeah, exposure is profiting, too) in the past. And this doesn't even touch the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent by Trump's golf outings to his private resorts.

                    In short: when the President starts whining about the "phony Emoluments Clause", probably best to not side with the President unless you're sure he's got an airtight case.

                    --Sam
                    Stop with the assumed moral superiority, Sam. It's unconvincing when you hand-wave away the data. Deal with the story that it the topic.


                    Is the story that oxmixmudd posted accurate and supported by the facts in the article and video clip, or not? Do you defend a news piece that misrepresents the President, or not?

                    I think I have shown that it is not at all accurate.

                    If you want people to agree with your assessment of Trump, then you need to use sources which are fair, truthful, and accurate, and reject ones which are not. Is that story accurate, or not?
                    Last edited by MaxVel; 10-22-2019, 10:48 AM.
                    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      Seems pretty cynical and disqualifies the person making the argument from ethical discussions.
                      Democrats could care less about bribery, unless they can use it against a Republican.
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                        You don’t have to say it to make it obvious what you believe. You believe Trump is the worst person to ever exist and anyone that dares to disagree with you is either too stupid to see what you see or too evil to care. Sounds like you’re describing the Antichrist to me. Rather you admit it or not.
                        Well that is pretty much off in loopy land.


                        And yet, I’m critical of many things he does or says and have expressed that opinion, several times over, in several post and responses to you (and even in this very thread). Yet, you ignore that and bear false witness against me because I don’t accept your opinion that Trump is the most evil person that has ever existed. This is why Trump won in 2016 and why he may win in 2020 too. It’s your way or the highway, you must believe Trump is the most evil person, that has ever existed or you’re too stupid to understand or too evil to care. Like I said, you’re the Jorge of Civics.
                        More negative adjective rants. Oh well.


                        No it isn’t. You’re just too blinded by rage and anger to see you becoming what you fear. A closed minded fool incapable of thinking in terms other than black/white. If that’s wrong, show me a single example of you not calling anyone that dares to disagree with you about Trump, not dumb or saying their immoral/evil. You can’t, can you? It’s Jim’s way or the highway, no other way.
                        My Rage ... ?

                        One can’t stay away from the obvious, you’re biased and it’s as plain as the nose on your face. Think that’s wrong, show me a single case showing otherwise. Bet you can’t.
                        well certainly not given your own bias towards me


                        Was Trump the owner an international business before he was president? Yes or no? Is the Trump corporation suppose to suspend all international hotels and developments just because Trump became president? Sorry, but this is America and not the USSR, you made the charge and it’s your job to prove your assertion, not mine to disprove it. Innocent till proven guilty, maybe you’ve heard of that concept before? A soundbite, click bate article, and assertion isn’t evidence of a crime. What happened to you? You used to source your stuff and back it up before you went all Jorge around here.
                        Sam explained it well. And to a certain extent, that is the cost to someone like Trump of taking on the presidency. He needs to find ways to ensure that while he is president his office and his businesses do not become intertwined, and especially that even the appearance of a conflict of interest be eliminated. If he wasn't willing to do that, he should have never run for office.



                        You haven’t offered up any evidence to back your claim. Max did a great job of showing your article as clickbait nonsense. Do your work instead of making assertions and expecting others to debunk your bald assertions.
                        Maybe not as great as you presume.

                        Jim
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Well that is pretty much off in loopy land.
                          Your gaslighting is noted. If I am wrong, name a single evil thing you think Trump is incapable of doing.

                          More negative adjective rants. Oh well.
                          More gaslighting. Stop bearing false witness Jim, but you won’t because it’s only your opponents that are terrible sinners, not the holy and righteous Jim!

                          My Rage ... ?
                          Name a conspiracy theory, about Trump, you don’t believe is true. I can name several about Clinton and Obama I think are false.

                          well certainly not given your own bias towards me
                          Give me a reason to think you’re objective. Can you?

                          Sam explained it well. And to a certain extent, that is the cost to someone like Trump of taking on the presidency. He needs to find ways to ensure that while he is president his office and his businesses do not become intertwined, and especially that even the appearance of a conflict of interest be eliminated. If he wasn't willing to do that, he should have never run for office.
                          That’s an assertion, not a fact. You nor Sam have been unable to show anything illegal happened. Which is the issue here, show it. Can you?

                          Maybe not as great as you presume.
                          The fact you nor Sam have addressed a word he said, speaks volumes.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                            Stop with the assumed moral superiority, Sam. It's unconvincing when you hand-wave away the data. Deal with the story that it the topic.


                            Is the story that oxmixmudd posted accurate and supported by the facts in the article and video clip, or not? Do you defend a news piece that misrepresents the President, or not?

                            I think I have shown that it is not at all accurate.

                            If you want people to agree with your assessment of Trump, then you need to use sources which are fair, truthful, and accurate, and reject ones which are not. Is that story accurate, or not?

                            Easy there, cowboy. I'm not assuming moral superiority here.

                            Just information superiority.

                            You're coming into the thread blaming Jim for not being accurate or objective describing Trump's attitude toward self-dealing and the Emoluments Clause, with your set of data based on one story and one clip. If you follow Trump's "pressers" and tweets with some frequency, however, it's more than obvious that his attitude toward emoluments matches his rhetoric here: he doesn't care about self-dealing, as he's handed his resorts (which he retains control over) hundreds of millions of dollars from his own use. He's also accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists, politicians, and foreign officials visiting his hotels, especially his hotel in DC that, according to the lease, he shouldn't even control. Trump is facing, to my knowledge, two lawsuits in federal court over the Emoluments Clause and has been routinely dismissive and contemptuous of people saying that he should divest of his assets like other presidents before him.

                            You say the piece misrepresents Trump. But journalism doesn't exist in a vacuum and the piece does not misrepresent what Trump said or his general attitude toward the issue. So if you know the context, you know it's accurate. If you don't know the context ... well, I'd say this is a topic worth some study.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Every day, in every way, the lawless Trump shows how he has failed miserably to grow into his office.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Easy there, cowboy. I'm not assuming moral superiority here.

                                Just information superiority.

                                You're coming into the thread blaming Jim for not being accurate or objective describing Trump's attitude toward self-dealing and the Emoluments Clause, with your set of data based on one story and one clip. If you follow Trump's "pressers" and tweets with some frequency, however, it's more than obvious that his attitude toward emoluments matches his rhetoric here: he doesn't care about self-dealing, as he's handed his resorts (which he retains control over) hundreds of millions of dollars from his own use. He's also accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists, politicians, and foreign officials visiting his hotels, especially his hotel in DC that, according to the lease, he shouldn't even control. Trump is facing, to my knowledge, two lawsuits in federal court over the Emoluments Clause and has been routinely dismissive and contemptuous of people saying that he should divest of his assets like other presidents before him.

                                You say the piece misrepresents Trump. But journalism doesn't exist in a vacuum and the piece does not misrepresent what Trump said or his general attitude toward the issue. So if you know the context, you know it's accurate. If you don't know the context ... well, I'd say this is a topic worth some study.

                                --Sam

                                I'm seeing a pattern here, Sam.* I make a simple point, and you dance here and there and everywhere trying to evade it, instead of just granting it, even though granting it wouldn't hurt your case, and actually would enhance your credibility.


                                - Aren't we all biased in some way? Do any of us look at both sides of the American political 'battle' objectively? Perhaps we should be more aware of our own biases, and a little more charitable toward those we disagree with, and a little more skeptical of media pieces that suit our prejudices. Result - a long series of posts explaining how you aren't really that biased, and how I have to convince you that you are, and how I'm just being cynical towards politicians anyway (and you aren't then just being naive??). You could have just agreed that everyone has biases, and it pays to be aware of our own ones.


                                - Did Trump really say what the article claims he did? I argue in detail, with actual quotes from the clip of the interview, that it doesn't fairly represent what he said in the interview. Result - some other, related allegations about Trump; claims that the article should be interpreted in a wider context (not provided) as typical of Trump's behaviour on this topic (i.e. even if the article gives a false impression of what Trump did say at that time, never mind because we know he's like that anyway). The citations you give are not examples of Trump's responses to allegations of violation of the emoluments clause (which would be somewhat relevant) but more allegations.

                                Think about it: If someone posted a thread claiming that Sam thinks we should all eat only horsemeat to save the world from global warming, with an edited and out of context quote of you saying 'I love horses'; and I question that claim about you; and the poster responds with cites of other people claiming that is your typical response, how does that show that the initial claim is true? Adding in some cites of articles saying that 'horsemeat onlyists' are breaking the rules of good dietary and environmental science doesn't address the question.


                                Would granting that the article oxmixmudd cited is a misrepresentation of Trump mean that he hasn't broken the emoluments clause? Of course not. I'm NOT arguing that he hasn't broken the clause (or that he has). My point has only, and always been, that the article is 'fake news'. How hard is it for you to grant that?

                                Would granting that the article is a misrepresentation show that you're able and willing to evaluate data sources objectively, and treat Trump fairly? Yes. Why then is it so hard for you to do that?







                                * I can do the 'I'm superior to you' tone thing too. It's unhelpful and unpersuasive. Are you trying to win people to your views, or just trying to beat them in arguments on TWeb?
                                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                299 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X