Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Subduction Zone]

I havent seen anyone make fun of him. I have seen people, including myself, make fun of you though.

I am sorry if you are unable to see that. But then some of us do have problems with rational thinking here.

Here is a challenge, see if you can rationally support your claims for once. Just one time. I would be amazed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a rather broad complaint, & hardly a basis for impeachment.
There should be specifics.
As for the suggestion that immoral half wits voted for him, that
fails to consider the faults of his main opposition. You might
find Hillary to be relatively a paragon of virtue & competence,
but reasonable people may disagree.

I know. That is why we need specifics. It is not illegal to be an immoral half wit. And no, Hillary was the absolute worst candidate that the Democrats could have found. I do not know what the leadership was thinking. Was it wishful thinking about Bill and hoping that Hillary would have only his good attributes, because I do not see that at all. Was it "okay, now it is a woman's turn"? Who know why they chose such a poor candidate and did not let a natural competition occur. Hillary was about the only candidate that Trump could have beaten. It appears that in the last election both sides had their own "race to the bottom". Somehow the Republicans won with the worst choice possible.

Now talking about Bill Clinton. His greatest successes occurred while the Congress was Republican. He was a rare politician that could work with the opposition. Something that we have not seen since. For me that was an ideal situation. Both sides do have valid points at times and it was nice to have a President that could somehow get them to work together.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now talking about Bill Clinton. His greatest successes occurred while the Congress was Republican. He was a rare politician that could work with the opposition. Something that we have not seen since. For me that was an ideal situation. Both sides do have valid points at times and it was nice to have a President that could somehow get them to work together.

Working together does have its downside though, eg, Bill's
heinous crime bill & feckless gun bill. And of course, there's
Dubya's getting bi-partisan support for the disastrous wars.

 

[Cooky]

I am sorry if you are unable to see that. But then some of us do have problems with rational thinking here.

Here is a challenge, see if you can rationally support your claims for once. Just one time. I would be amazed.

These are the kinds of personal attacks that lead to disruption. I, for one, won't take part in it. It's just that simple.

...It doesn't shut me down though, I just go right around it.

 

[Cooky]

No, your source took a quote out of context. It does not show a 'deep state' or a conspiracy of any sort. It only state the obvious. When an immoral or incompetent leader arises there will be internal resistance to his idiocy. That is the case that we see with Trump. Very often his own people try to reign in "the stupid". But unfortunately "the stupid" boils up in some people and has to be vented out. Trump does so through Twitter quite often.

Again, find a reliable source for your claims. Do not use right wing wacko sites if you want others to take you seriously.

It may not work for you, but for those who *don't* want hired government agents staging coupes against elected officials, it might be helpful.

 

[Jollybear]

I am sorry if you are unable to see that. But then some of us do have problems with rational thinking here.

Here is a challenge, see if you can rationally support your claims for once. Just one time. I would be amazed.

Anytime i or others do support our claims all you do is state the same old boring, worn out line "thats an unreliable source" bs over and over. Then you start going on a preaching rampent of your view again. Its a pattern you got down to a T.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anytime i or others do support our claims all you do is state the same old boring, worn out line "thats an unreliable source" bs over and over. Then you start going on a preaching rampent of your view again. Its a pattern you got down to a T.

That is because you do not know how to vet your sources. Of course when you keep making the same mistakes you will keep getting the same corrections.

Learn from your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may not work for you, but for those who *don't* want hired government agents staging coupes against elected officials, it might be helpful.

Please, there have been no coups. Silly over dramatic claims only hurts your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are the kinds of personal attacks that lead to disruption. I, for one, won't take part in it. It's just that simple.

...It doesn't shut me down though, I just go right around it.

Corrections are not personal attacks.

 

[Jollybear]

That is because you do not know how to vet your sources. Of course when you keep making the same mistakes you will keep getting the same corrections.

Learn from your errors.

This is your error. The fact you keep refusing to address the points made by all our sources on vertually every subject weve discussed should prove emphatically that you dont care a lick about debate but only about preaching.

 

[Jollybear]

Please, there have been no coups. Silly over dramatic claims only hurts your argument.

Comming from someone who doesnt know what an ad hominum is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your error. The fact you keep refusing to address the points made by all our sources on vertually every subject weve discussed should prove emphatically that you dont care a lick about debate but only about preaching.

The points have been addressed using valid sources again and again. You are projecting again. Please don't accuse others of your flaws.

You have been told by multiple people that you need to learn how to find valid sources. The fact that only those that are off in la la land support your claims should be a clue.

 

[Cooky]

Please, there have been no coups. Silly over dramatic claims only hurts your argument.

Subduction Zone, the Justice Department told us in 2007 that they planned to "resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints."

...Now a CIA agent, a member of the Justice Department, has spied on the president and did exactly what they claimed they would do beforehand.

What right do hired Justice Department employees have judging the conscionableness of the elected Commander in Chief? Shouldn't they be doing as they're told rather than embarking on an initiative to "push back"?

What if soldiers "pushed back" against their superiors? What if I "push back" against the police?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Comming from someone who doesnt know what an ad hominum is.

LOL, don't go there. You have no clue as to what an ad hom is yourself. You only take the shallowest approach to the concept and then pretend that you understand it. If you want to discuss an ad hom that is fine with me. You were given the chance to challenge some of my claims, instead you simply made the false claim of ad hom and ran away. You don't seem to realize that when you accuse someone of something you put a burden of proof upon yourself. When you run away that amounts to admitting that you were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone, the Justice Department told us in 2007 that they planned to "resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints."

...Now a CIA agent, a member of the Justice Department, has spied on the president and did exactly what they claimed they would do beforehand.

What right do hired Justice Department employees have judging the Commander in Chief, an elected official? Shouldn't they be doing as they're told?

Supposed quotes without a linked source are worthless in debates. There is no excuse for such an action. Have you heard of quote mining? It is a means of lying by quoting out of context. Extremist sources love to do that. This is why a link to the original source of the quote is a must. Not an article that supposedly quotes someone else.

An extreme example of quote mining is the fact that the Bible says at least twelve times "there is no God". Does that mean that the Bible says there is no God or would that be a dishonest quote mine if I tried to make that claim?

 

[Cooky]

Supposed quotes without a linked source are worthless in debates. There is no excuse for such an action. Have you heard of quote mining? It is a means of lying by quoting out of context. Extremist sources love to do that. This is why a link to the original source of the quote is a must. Not an article that supposedly quotes someone else.

An extreme example of quote mining is the fact that the Bible says at least twelve times "there is no God". Does that mean that the Bible says there is no God or would that be a dishonest quote mine if I tried to make that claim?

Paragraph 5

An Anti-Trump Resistance Movement Is Growing Within the U.S. Government

 

[Ouroboros]

In the RF tradition of responding to the thread title and completely ignoring the OP...

I commend him in saving tax-payer dollars and committing himself to such physical labor.

Had to re-read th op-title to get it.

First, I was... uh, what? What physical labor? Golf?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paragraph 5

An Anti-Trump Resistance Movement Is Growing Within the U.S. Government

Still not the original source, but let's see what it says in a wider context:

"Others, however, view resistance as a part of the job. “Policy dissent is in our culture,” one diplomat in Africa, who signed the letter circulating among foreign diplomats, told The New York Times. “We even have awards for it,” this person added, in reference to the State Department’s “Constructive Dissent” award. One Justice Department employee told the Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports."

And as you see, some in the government rightly see that part of their job is to oppose illegal and immoral acts. Do you have a problem with that? By the way, did you see how your earlier source lied? It claimed that the CIA person spied on the President. That is a claim that requires substantial evidence to support. There is no evidence of spying. He heard what happened from various sources and reported on it. You may not realize this but hearsay is perfectly admissible grounds for whistleblowing. Whistleblowing itself is not a conviction. It can lead to an investigation that will end up in a conviction and by Trump's own released transcript the whistleblower was correct and accurate. Your source quoted out of context and tried to make an honorable act look evil.

Here is an example. Let's say that you are an anti-abortion person working in the bureaucracy. You hear from multiple credible sources of plans for forced abortions for poor people on welfare. You do not have any direct evidence, but the people that you have heard this from are high ranking officials. Would whistleblowing about those plans be wrong? Would you view it as part of your job to make this plan public?

 

[Cooky]

Still not the original source, but let's see what it says in a wider context:

"Others, however, view resistance as a part of the job. “Policy dissent is in our culture,” one diplomat in Africa, who signed the letter circulating among foreign diplomats, told The New York Times. “We even have awards for it,” this person added, in reference to the State Department’s “Constructive Dissent” award. One Justice Department employee told the Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports."

And as you see, some in the government rightly see that part of their job is to oppose illegal and immoral acts. Do you have a problem with that? By the way, did you see how your earlier source lied? It claimed that the CIA person spied on the President. That is a claim that requires substantial evidence to support. There is no evidence of spying. He heard what happened from various sources and reported on it. You may not realize this but hearsay is perfectly admissible grounds for whistleblowing. Whistleblowing itself is not a conviction. It can lead to an investigation that will end up in a conviction and by Trump's own released transcript the whistleblower was correct and accurate. Your source quoted out of context and tried to make an honorable act look evil.

Here is an example. Let's say that you are an anti-abortion person working in the bureaucracy. You hear from multiple credible sources of plans for forced abortions for poor people on welfare. You do not have any direct evidence, but the people that you have heard this from are high ranking officials. Would whistleblowing about those plans be wrong? Would you view it as part of your job to make this plan public?

The difference is that this was a *premeditated* initiative. The first impeachment was a big fail. Now they're trying it again.

Can't you see that this is a plot? A plot to get rid of the president? That's a coup..!

 

[Cooky]

...And people wonder why Trump asks Ukraine for help? Because his own Justice Department is subordinate to the president, and are actively working on ousting him from his position -which is unprecedented! And possibly illegal.

This is a coup through and through... By the same powerful forces that disrupted Iraq, and Libya.