Trump foreign policy

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Ah, someone who laps up what the mainstream media and establish republicans/democrats telling him is calling everyone else a "sheep."

 

Gotta love it.

 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I pointed out actual National Security Risks to the US that Putin and Russia represent.  Ben Sasse publicly stated that Trump's tariffs are "dumb". 

 

"This is dumb," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb, said in a statement. “Europe, Canada and Mexico are not China, and you don’t treat allies the same way you treat opponents. We’ve been down this road before — blanket protectionism is a big part of why America had a Great Depression. 'Make America Great Again' shouldn’t mean 'Make America 1929 Again.'"

 

Try paying attention.

 

Buying what Trump and Navarro state as truth? I wouldn't expect you to do anything other than that.   You're just another one of the sheep in the flock. 

You truly are an idiot. You and Ben are looking at this tariff game as the game of checkers while it is really 3 dimensional chess. Trump is ultimately for Free Trade. In the meantime there has to be an incentive for other countries to go there. This must be tough on you when it is necessary to try to discuss things when you can't rely on other peoples words in a copy and paste to hide your paucity of critical thinking.

[Koko78]

40 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Man, things must be really, really slow on the main board. 

 

It is that time of year...

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It's been a dying industry for decades

 

 

So, to be clear, your position here is that major concerns which have persisted for a long time shouldn't ever be addressed, because the status quo is to allow major national security threats to fester?

 

 

Quote

Like Russia and Putin for example 

 

I don't believe anyone here, or the President, believes Russia to be anything less than a primary geo-political foe.  Such is the reality of a multi-polarist world in which two or more global powers compete for resources in order to best drive their own interests.  Russia behaves exactly as you would expect a geo-political foe to behave; which is much in the exact same manner we behave on the global stage.  We have intervened and interfered in the elections of nations for decades, and have actively overthrown democratically elected governments.  The CIA exists for this singular purpose.

 

In fact, nations we have traditionally considered to be our allies, like Germany, England, France, Australia, and Isreal have done the exact same thing, and worse, yet we continue to have normalized diplomatic relations with them.

 

Do you know why?

 

Because peace, where you can have it on reasonable terms, is far better than nuclear war.  You want normalized relations with as many other nations as possible; and when you attempt to normalize relations with nations whom have traditionally been outside that sphere you have to meet with their leaders.

 

Or is your preference open war and hostilities with the second best equipped nuclear power on Earth?

 

Quote

 

People like Sen Ben Sasse don't buy your BS!

 

I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here.  He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are.

 

The President campaigned on putting an end to an geo-political environment where the United States carried the freight for the rest of the world, propping up their managed economies, and supporting their welfare states; all while absorbing their derision.  The end goal is a balanced and fair system under which our international partners meet their own responsibilities; and since they were unwilling to do so without prodding due to the domestic policies of their own systems, the Trump Administration is forcing their hand by attacking their policies from America's position of strength.  Once this is achieved, there is no reason to persist with tariffs.  Europe will blink, as will China (who already has on many fronts), because they have to. 

 

As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible?  If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion.

 

Quote

Another set of nothing declarations driven by your right wing slants.  Save your pseudo-intellectual BS for someone who doesn't know any better.

 

Important for the reader to note:  You haven't addressed a single point I've made.  I have presented arguments, and you have slandered them with fiat declarations without addressing their merits on a point by point basis.

 

But "you know better", and I'm a "right wing pseudo-intellectual".

 

Here's your chance to demonstrate exactly that:   I take the time to examine and address your "argument" point by point, because I can, and I have a stronger case.

 

If you disagree, make your counter argument here.  I'm more than happy to slap you around for a few hours.

Edited July 16, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Koko78]

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You truly are an idiot. You and Ben are looking at this tariff game as the game of checkers while it is really 3 dimensional chess. Trump is ultimately for Free Trade. In the meantime there has to be an incentive for other countries to go there. This must be tough on you when it is necessary to try to discuss things when you can't rely on other peoples words in a copy and paste to hide your paucity of critical thinking.

 

Trump is not for free trade, and never has been. He is for FAIR trade, which is not the same thing.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You truly are an idiot. You and Ben are looking at this tariff game as the game of checkers while it is really 3 dimensional chess. Trump is ultimately for Free Trade. In the meantime there has to be an incentive for other countries to go there. This must be tough on you when it is necessary to try to discuss things when you can't rely on other peoples words in a copy and paste to hide your paucity of critical thinking.

 

Critical thinking my ass.  You spouting Trump administration nonsense is the exact opposite of that.  3-D chess from the band of idiots that are pushing this protectionist garbage. Laughable!  You're a nothing more than a moron who buys their bull **** as any kind sensible policy in the current world of interconnected economics with a web of interdependencies.  

 

[26CornerBlitz]

28 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So, to be clear, your position here is that major concerns which have persisted for a long time shouldn't ever be addressed, because the status quo is to allow major national security threats to fester?

It's not a national security threat no matter how many times you state it to be so.  The days of US Steel under JP Morgan as the driving force behind the economy are long gone.

 

I don't believe anyone here, or the President, believes Russia to be anything less than a primary geo-political foe.  Such is the reality of a multi-polarist world in which two or more global powers compete for resources in order to best drive their own interests.  Russia behaves exactly as you would expect a geo-political foe to behave; which is much in the exact same manner we behave on the global stage.  We have intervened and interfered in the elections of nations for decades, and have actively overthrown democratically elected governments.  The CIA exists for this singular purpose. Your lectures are tired as if I don't know about the historical misdeeds of the CIA dating back to the 50's.

 

In fact, nations we have traditionally considered to be our allies, like Germany, England, France, Australia, and Isreal have done the exact same thing, and worse, yet we continue to have normalized diplomatic relations with them.

 

Do you know why?

 

Because peace, where you can have it on reasonable terms, is far better than nuclear war.  You want normalized relations with as many other nations as possible; and when you attempt to normalize relations with nations whom have traditionally been outside that sphere you have to meet with their leaders.

 

Or is your preference open war and hostilities with the second best equipped nuclear power on Earth?

 

 

I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here.  He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are.

 

The President campaigned on putting an end to an geo-political environment where the United States carried the freight for the rest of the world, propping up their managed economies, and supporting their welfare states; all while absorbing their derision.  The end goal is a balanced and fair system under which our international partners meet their own responsibilities; and since they were unwilling to do so without prodding due to the domestic policies of their own systems, the Trump Administration is forcing their hand by attacking their policies from America's position of strength.  Once this is achieved, there is no reason to persist with tariffs.  Europe will blink, as will China (who already has on many fronts), because they have to.   Yep. You are an fringe element ideologue who buys their BS hook, line, and stinker

 

As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible?  If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion. This shows how blindly ideological you are as if I need to agree with everything he or anyone else says. 

 

Important for the reader to note:  You haven't addressed a single point I've made.  I have presented arguments, and you have slandered them with fiat declarations without addressing their merits on a point by point basis. You 

 

But "you know better", and I'm a "right wing pseudo-intellectual".

 

Here's your chance to demonstrate exactly that:   I take the time to examine and address your "argument" point by point, because I can, and I have a stronger case.

 

If you disagree, make your counter argument here.  I'm more than happy to slap you around for a few hours. Again, you spout the Trump party line as some kind of absolute truth.  Give Pepe a kiss. 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[DC Tom]

10 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

He's made billions of dollars in the private sector, playing by the same rules everyone else does.  He has far more acumen than most anyone else in government and private enterprise.

 

Your characterization of him as anything other than wildly successful is nothing more than standard leftist playbooking:  IE anyone who doesn't understand how wise and dynamic liberal policy is, is a moron.  Your side of the aisle has been doing this for literally decades.

 

The truth is that you're simply wrong, simple, and mean spirited.  And you're losing.  Badly.

 

To your earlier response, no, that's not what you were talking about.  The board records what you type, and any disagreement by you at this point is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.  But even if that was what you were talking about, which it wasn't, and you betrayed with your own words, you're still wrong:  Domestic steel production is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a pillar of national security.  Nations working to skirt American interests to those ends pose a direct threat to national security to those ends.  Tariffs are a corrective slap on the wrist to nations who have done/ are doing this, and are easily reversible once those nations get their houses in order.

 

The fact is that your dislike of President Trump, Republicans, and conservatives has colored your opinion so strongly that you reject wholesale the actual motives of policy drivers from that side of the aisle, and have instead decided to substitute your own warped reality for what is actually happening.

 

Because of this you have invalidated your opinion, and have less than zero credibility in this arena.

 

He's made billions of dollars, starting from nothing, twice!  

 

He also managed to fail at casino gambling.  He failed in a business model of " How much money do you have?  Give it to me."

 

His current revenue stream was licensing his name.  

 

His marketing acumen is considerable, clearly.  Evidenced in no small part by the fact he's convinced people he has business acumen.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He's made billions of dollars, starting from nothing, twice!  

 

He also managed to fail at casino gambling.  He failed in a business model of " How much money do you have?  Give it to me."

 

His current revenue stream was licensing his name.  

 

His marketing acumen is considerable, clearly.  Evidenced in no small part by the fact he's convinced people he has business acumen.

 

 

one of the greatest marketers in US business history

 

he basically talked his way into the Presidency

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

 

one of the greatest marketers in US business history

 

he basically talked his way into the Presidency

 

 

 

No, he let Hillary talk his way in to the presidency.

 

Which is great marketing.

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, he let Hillary talk his way in to the presidency.

 

Which is great marketing.

 

all angles are checkmated by him

 

it's quite amusing

 

i'm enjoying this quite thoroughly

 

 

 

 

'and she thinks she can beat him in 2020

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

It's not a national security threat no matter how many times you state it to be so.  The days of US Steel under JP Morgan as the driving force behind the economy are long gone.

 

Your disbelief that domestic steel production is a matter of national security is a hole you've poked in your own argument.

 

It's not that I have said so, it's that it's self evident, and documented.  It's a direct concern in the exact same way energy independence and agricultural supremacy are.

 

If you disagree with this point, I'll leave it to you to explain why domestic steel production is not a national security concern.

 

Your lectures are tired as if I don't know about the historical misdeeds of the CIA dating back to the 50's.

 

Point of order:  They shouldbe tired, but you are demonstrating that they are necessary.

 

In fact, the way you're prattling on, one would be led to believe that you have exactly zero understanding of how global powers behave in the modern world. 

 

Again, I'll now leave it to you to explain how Russia's behavior was different than any other global actor in the last 50 years, including our own, and why most every super power should declare war against us.

 

Yep. You are an fringe element ideologue who buys their BS hook line, and stinker

 

You've called it "a line", and yet he ran on it, clearly stating his intentions; and now he's acting on it, taking direct steps towards achieving those goals.

 

The only person here presenting evidence is me, and yet here you sit, making empty ad hom attacks in place of anything resembling a coherent argument.

 

My argument is:  the President articulated what he was planning to do, continues to do so, and then executes actionable steps towards those goals.

 

Make your counter argument, which would logically have to include that he did not articulate his goals (which he did, and I can source), that he does not continue to do so in an ongoing capacity (which he has, and I can source), and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals (which he is, and I can source).

 

Pro-tip:  calling the President a moron, and making ugly character attacks by fiat are not a convincing argument.  A convincing argument is a convincing argument.  If you're incapable of making one, perhaps you should stop trying.

 

This shows how blindly ideological you are as if I need to agree with everything he or anyone else says.

 

This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

 

Allow me to help you:  You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case.  In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise.

 

This was your unsolicited choice.

 

What you left out was why you leveraged his position.  With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts.

 

The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions.  In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions:  reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says.

 

That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious.  You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now.

 

Again, you spout the Trump party line as some kind of absolute truth.  Give Pepe a kiss. 

 

Perhaps this is what passes for clever on twitter?

 

Again, you haven't demonstrated anything I've said to be incorrect.

 

You've gnashed your teeth, wailed a lot, and called me names; but at the end of the day you're getting your ass kicked.  And it's all documented, right here, in black and white (and some of your idiotic red) for everyone to see.

 

Here's my advice to you:  Step outside your bubble.  Actually take the time to read, and learn how the world works. 

 

I mean, I know you won't take it, because you don't strike me as being particularly bright or capable; but I've done my part and can now rest my head soundly on my pillow tonight knowing that I've tried.

 

Now, go ahead and post something else irretrievably stupid, and I'll continue to kick your ass.

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Your disbelief that domestic steel production is a matter of national security is a hole you've poked in your own argument.

 

It's not that I have said so, it's that it's self evident, and documented.  It's a direct concern in the exact same way energy independence and agricultural supremacy are.

 

If you disagree with this point, I'll leave it to you to explain why domestic steel production is not a national security concern.

 

 

 

 

Point of order:  They shouldbe tired, but you are demonstrating that they are necessary.

 

In fact, the way you're prattling on, one would be led to believe that you have exactly zero understanding of how global powers behave in the modern world. 

 

Again, I'll now leave it to you to explain how Russia's behavior was different than any other global actor in the last 50 years, including our own, and why most every super power should declare war against us.

 

 

 

 

You've called it "a line", and yet he ran on it, clearly stating his intentions; and now he's acting on it, taking direct steps towards achieving those goals.

 

The only person here presenting evidence is me, and yet here you sit, making empty ad hom attacks in place of anything resembling a coherent argument.

 

My argument is:  the President articulated what he was planning to do, continues to do so, and then executes actionable steps towards those goals.

 

Make your counter argument, which would logically have to include that he did not articulate his goals (which he did, and I can source), that he does not continue to do so in an ongoing capacity (which he has, and I can source), and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals (which he is, and I can source).

 

Pro-tip:  calling the President a moron, and making ugly character attacks by fiat are not a convincing argument.  A convincing argument is a convincing argument.  If you're incapable of making one, perhaps you should stop trying.

 

 

 

 

This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

 

Allow me to help you:  You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case.  In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise.

 

This was your unsolicited choice.

 

What you left out was why you leveraged his position.  With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts.

 

The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions.  In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions:  reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says.

 

That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious.  You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps this is what passes for clever on twitter?

 

Again, you haven't demonstrated anything I've said to be incorrect.

 

You've gnashed your teeth, wailed a lot, and called me names; but at the end of the day you're getting your ass kicked.  And it's all documented, right here, in black and white (and some of your idiotic red) for everyone to see.

 

Here's my advice to you:  Step outside your bubble.  Actually take the time to read, and learn how the world works. 

 

I mean, I know you won't take it, because you don't strike me as being particularly bright or capable; but I've done my part and can now rest my head soundly on my pillow tonight knowing that I've tried.

 

Now, go ahead and post something else irretrievably stupid, and I'll continue to kick your ass.

 

 

quite entertaining

 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Your disbelief that domestic steel production is a matter of national security is a hole you've poked in your own argument.

 

It's not that I have said so, it's that it's self evident, and documented.  It's a direct concern in the exact same way energy independence and agricultural supremacy are.  

 

If you disagree with this point, I'll leave it to you to explain why domestic steel production is not a national security concern. It's BS that the Trump Administration has put forward to prop up the Steel industry at the expense of other jobs and higher prices that consumers will face as a result of these tariffs. 

 

Point of order:  They shouldbe tired, but you are demonstrating that they are necessary.

 

In fact, the way you're prattling on, one would be led to believe that you have exactly zero understanding of how global powers behave in the modern world. 

 

Again, I'll now leave it to you to explain how Russia's behavior was different than any other global actor in the last 50 years, including our own, and why most every super power should declare war against us.   Undeclared cyberwarfare nonetheless that you are rationalizing and Trumphe continues to deflect because the efforts were in his favor.

 

You've called it "a line", and yet he ran on it, clearly stating his intentions; and now he's acting on it, taking direct steps towards achieving those goals.

 

The only person here presenting evidence is me, and yet here you sit, making empty ad hom attacks in place of anything resembling a coherent argument.  You have provided no evidence other than linking a document that makes a Trumped up National Security case.

 

My argument is:  the President articulated what he was planning to do, continues to do so, and then executes actionable steps towards those goals.

 

Make your counter argument, which would logically have to include that he did not articulate his goals (which he did, and I can source), that he does not continue to do so in an ongoing capacity (which he has, and I can source), and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals (which he is, and I can source).

 

Pro-tip:  calling the President a moron, and making ugly character attacks by fiat are not a convincing argument.  A convincing argument is a convincing argument.  If you're incapable of making one, perhaps you should stop trying.  He's a moron based on his lack of understanding of history or any real intellectual curiosity that shows in the ignorant statements he makes on a regular basis.

 

This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

 

Allow me to help you:  You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case.  In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise.

 

This was your unsolicited choice.

 

What you left out was why you leveraged his position.  With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts.

 

The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions.  In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions:  reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says.  I happen to agree with his position on a number of these in that I bolded while I disagree with others.  That's called being independent. 

 

That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious.  You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now.  This must be true because you declared it so. 

 

Perhaps this is what passes for clever on twitter?

 

Again, you haven't demonstrated anything I've said to be incorrect.

 

You've gnashed your teeth, wailed a lot, and called me names; but at the end of the day you're getting your ass kicked.  And it's all documented, right here, in black and white (and some of your idiotic red) for everyone to see.

 

Here's my advice to you:  Step outside your bubble.  Actually take the time to read, and learn how the world works.  Take your own advice and stop spouting party line nonsense. 

 

I mean, I know you won't take it, because you don't strike me as being particularly bright or capable; but I've done my part and can now rest my head soundly on my pillow tonight knowing that I've tried.

 

Now, go ahead and post something else irretrievably stupid, and I'll continue to kick your ass.   Lick is more like it.

 

You're funny when you declare wins for yourself based on nothing more than spouting opinion. 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You're funny when you declare wins for yourself based on nothing more than spouting opinion. 

 

TYTT, I'm going to tweet that you won, and you can post it here.  

[Koko78]

44 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

You're funny when you declare wins for yourself based on nothing more than spouting opinion. 

 

Yet you did absolutely nothing to actually refute his points.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Yet you did absolutely nothing to actually refute his points.

 

Nothing you agree with of course.   Shocked!

[TakeYouToTasker]

46 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It's BS that the Trump Administration has put forward to prop up the Steel industry at the expense of other jobs and higher prices that consumers will face as a result of these tariffs.

 

That's not how this works.  You made a fiat declaration that it is bull **** for no other reason than President Trump said it.

 

The case has been made that domestic steel production is a national security issue because our essential systems require top quality steel in order to be both produced and sustained, and because we are currently dependent on the steel production from nations hostile to our interests who have been producing sub-standard steel.

 

It's the exact same argument made in favor of energy independence and agricultural supremacy.

 

If you disagree, make an argument in disagreement.  You haven't done so yet.

 

Quote

Undeclared cyberwarfare nonetheless that you are rationalizing and Trumphe continues to deflect because the efforts were in his favor.

 

No one here is rationalizing anything.  I simply understand how nations behave in the 21st century, and you do not.

 

In addition to this, you keep claiming that the President has not done/is not doing anything about it.  This is absolutely untrue. 

 

The President has leveraged crippling sanctions, and you don't know that what other steps/actions he has or has not taken toward those ends.  You're talking about grave national security concerns involving other nations inner intelligence machinations, and about a desire to preserve peace with other nuclear powers.  This isn't steel production which is fine and dandy to debate in the public square.

 

So again, you're wrong, and are making fiat declarations absent evidence.

 

Quote

He's a moron based on his lack of understanding of history or any real intellectual curiosity that shows in the ignorant statements he makes on a regular basis.

 

Again, this isn't an argument.  The President said what he was going to work to achieve, makes continuous affirmative statements to those ends, and is taking actionable steps towards the completion of those goals.  This is all documented and can be sourced.

 

What you are doing, again, is making fiat declarations in place of substance.

 

Feel free to make the case that the President did not say what he wanted to achieve, that he does not make on going statements to that effect, and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals.

 

If you're correct this should be an easy task.

 

But you aren't correct, so you can't; and instead simply dismiss all of this "because Trump reasons", as if your moronic handwavium can disappear facts and reality.

 

I'm still waiting for you to articulate a coherent argument on this front.  I won't hold my breath though.

 

Quote

I happen to agree with his position on a number of these in that I bolded while I disagree with others.  That's called being independent.

 

But we aren't talking about political independence.  We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument.  Which is a logical fallacy.

 

Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is.

 

Quote

This must be true because you declared it so.

 

...

 

This is so staggeringly stupid that I'm almost lost for words.

 

You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse.

 

I didn't "declare it to be true".

 

I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true.

 

That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold your hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's.

 

Do better.

 

Quote

Take your own advice and stop spouting party line nonsense.

 

Tell me, what political party do you think I belong to?  I mean, surely I must be a member of the alt-right? 

 

Everyone is already laughing at you, so why not put the cherry on top.

 

Quote

Lick is more like it.

 

It would not surprise me one bit to learn that most of your intellectual endeavors end up in analingus.

Edited July 16, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Nothing you agree with of course.   Shocked!

 

Be as shocked as you want.

 

However, if you actually want some respect around here, start refuting his points with actual facts - showing your work, rather than the stupidity that you've been posting.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Be as shocked as you want.

 

However, if you actually want some respect around here, start refuting his points with actual facts - showing your work, rather than the stupidity that you've been posting.

When training camp starts things will get a lot more intellectual around here. I pity the people on TSW though.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That's not how this works.  You made a fiat declaration that it is bull **** for no other reason than President Trump said it.

 

The case has been made that domestic steel production is a national security issue because our essential systems require top quality steel in order to be both produced and sustained, and because we are currently dependent on the steel production from nations hostile to our interests who have been producing sub-standard steel. Like Canada, Mexico and the EU.  More flimsy and farcical bull ****.  Much of the problem with the US Steel industry was self inflicted because of decisions they made many decades ago based on older technology while the rest of the industry outside the US innovated. So don't give me the BS line about inferior quality.  You show your ignorance here. 

It's the exact same argument made in favor of energy independence and agricultural supremacy.

 

If you disagree, make an argument is disagreement.  You haven't done so yet.

 

No one here is rationalizing anything. That's exactly what you're doing  I simply understand how nations behave in the 21st century, and you do not.

 

In addition to this, you keep claiming that the President has not done/is not doing anything about it.  This is absolutely untrue.  He maintains that Russia and Putin did not meddle regardless of government action here.

 

The President has leverage crippling sanctions, and you don't know that what other steps/actions he has or has not taken toward those ends.  You're talking about grave national security concerns involving other nations inner intelligence machinations, and about a desire to preserve peace with other nuclear powers.  This isn't steel production which is fine and dandy to debate in the public square.

 

So again, you're wrong, and are making fiat declarations absent evidence.  Placing tariffs on Allies under section 232 is BS that will only create reciprocal tariffs in an ever escalating trade war.

 

Again, this isn't an argument.  The President said what he was going to work to achieve, makes continuous affirmative statements to those ends, and is taking actionable steps towards the completion of those goals.  This is all documented and can be sourced.

 

What you are doing, again, is making fiat declarations in place of substance.

 

Feel free to make the case that the President did not say what he wanted to achieve, that he does not make on going statements to that effect, and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals.

 

If you're correct this should be an easy task.  Does that mean his approach via tariffs is correct?  No it certainly does not. 

 

But you aren't correct, so you can't; and instead simply dismiss all of this "because Trump reasons", as if your moronic handwavium can disappear facts and reality.

 

I'm still waiting for you to articulate a coherent argument on this front.  I won't hold my breath though.  Your argument is neither correct, coherent, nor cogent despite your feeble comparison to the energy and agriculture industries with some farmers' livelihoods being threatened by retaliatory tariffs.

 

But we aren't talking about political independence.  We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument.  Which is a logical fallacy.  It's not at all a logical fallacy to show refute your nonsense that opposition to tariff policy is some liberal idea which is why I referenced him.  

 

Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is.

 

...

 

This is so staggeringly stupid that I'm almost lost for words.

 

You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse.

 

I didn't "declare it to be true".

 

I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true. You did no such thing other than engage in self congratulations. 

 

That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold you hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's.

 

Do better.

 

Tell me, what political party do you think I belong to?  I mean, surely I must be a member of the alt-right?  I wasn't referring to a political party you moron. I'm talking about the Trumpian party line that you buy and attempt to sell here. 

 

Everyone is already laughing at you, so why not put the cherry on top.  I'm laughing at your pseudo arguments that you bring forward. 

 

It would not surprise me one bit to learn that most of your intellectual endeavors end up in analingus.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Like Canada, Mexico and the EU.  More flimsy and farcical bull ****.  Much of the problem with the US Steel industry was self inflicted because of decisions they made many decades ago based on older technology while the rest of the industry outside the US innovated. So don't give me the BS line about inferior quality.  You show your ignorance here. 

 

Actually, I'm speaking from a place of knowledge because I bothered to read and understand what has been happening with the global steel industry; along with the President's policy prescriptions to address them, unlike you.

 

The domestic steel industry went into decline for the same reason many of our production industries have, as the US became a debt driven service economy and stopped producing.  Over the decades we found ourselves in the untenable position of not having the production capacity to produce a commodity that is vital to our domestic security in ever sense of the word:  IE.  We have placed a key pillar of our sovereignty and security in the hands of competitor nations who do not have the best interests of the United States on their agenda.  To compound the problem, the imported steel is garbage.

 

As such, in order to stimulate our own domestic production, and return to a high quality supply of steel; tariffs are being placed on the nations producing the flawed product, and to those helping them skirt our policies.

 

Again, it would behoove you to actually understand what you're talking about before popping off at the mouth.

 

Quote

That's exactly what you're doing

 

This is a painfully stupid line of reasoning.  You're making it abundantly clear that you don't understand modern geo-politics.  What is it that you don't understand about all nations meddling in the elections of all other nations?

 

We do it to others.  In fact, we have an entire intel agency whose existence is dedicated to it.  Other nations do it to us, including our traditional allies in Germany, England, France, Canada, Australia, and Israel.  We do it to our allies as well.  It is, quite literally, how the world works.

 

But now, "because Trump", you'd rather engage in overt acts of war with nuclear powers instead of engaging in diplomacy. 

 

That's asinine.  It's a moronic position that no serious person should entertain.

 

Quote

He maintains that Russia and Putin did not meddle regardless of government action here.

 

This is an outright fabrication by you.  A quick web search will show you no shortage of evidence that you're simply making things up as you go

 

An example:  White House Press Briefing, February 20, 2018:

 

"We have spent a lot of time working on cyber security, focusing on protecting the fairness on our elections. And, as I said, the department of homeland security met with state and local officials just over the last several weeks along with election vendors to make sure our election system is secure. They met with state and private officials on how best to secure the election system from foreign interference. We’re not the only targets of foreign interference, and we’re working with our allies on a daily basis to make sure we’re following best practices. This has been a topic of conversation with multiple foreign heads of state. President Trump and the administration [take the stance] that actions that interference in our elections will have consequences. And we’ll continue to impose consequences in response to Russian cyber attacks. Just last week we called out Russia by name, it was one of the first times you’ve seen something like that take place.”

 

Another example was the President's own tweets yesterday.

 

Simply put, you're lying.

 

Quote

Placing tariffs on Allies under section 232 is BS that will only create reciprocal tariffs in an ever escalating trade war.

 

The sovereign states that we are engaging with in trade wars cannot afford to do so in a protracted manner, where as the United States is in a position where we can.

 

Under the status quo the United States has paid the freight for the entire world for decades while we've simultaneously eroded our own economic base.

 

Your policy preference is what, exactly?  Keep bending over, and attend our poorly structured deals which have America subsidizing everyone else at the expense of our citizens?

 

The trade wars will not last forever, and America is bargaining from a position of strength; and will result in better trade deals which benefit Americans and make us more prosperous.

 

Quote

Does that mean his approach via tariffs is correct?  No it certainly does not.

 

This is a bare assertion.

 

I have outlined why the President is engaging in tariff policy.

 

I, myself, am a free trade advocate; but free trade only works when both sides engage in it.  Otherwise, it doesn't exist.  To remedy the current situation, and bring ourselves to a situation where something closer to free trade is possible, there must be some growing pains.  There are no easy paths out of a difficult situation, and the status quo is completely untenable.

 

Tariffs are a lever the President can pull towards those ends, and he is operating under the Constitutional scope of the Executives delegated powers.

 

Quote

Your argument is neither correct, coherent, nor cogent despite your feeble comparison to the energy and agriculture industries with some farmers' livelihoods being threatened by retaliatory tariffs.

 

So we're back to this:  Your argument really is that domestic steel production is not a national security concern/issue.

 

Well, that's not really being fair to the concept of arguments, because to date you haven't made one.  You pitched a fit, and acted like a two year old; but you haven't explained why steel, which is essential to our national defense, and nearly 100% of our domestic infrastructure including roads, bridges, and our energy grid, along with our capacity to produce and supply food to our population is not a national security concern.

 

You've petulantly denied it all throughout your tantrum, but you haven't explained it.

 

Please do so now.

 

Quote

It's not at all a logical fallacy to show refute your nonsense that opposition to tariff policy is some liberal idea which is why I referenced him.

 

This isn't a coherent sentence, but I think I know what you're trying to communicate, because after engaging with you for as long as I have, I have become fluent in "unrepentant !@#$wit"; so please sit back and enjoy while I "show refute" your muppetry.

 

This is the post I made, to which you responded with your stack of Ben Sasse logical fallacies:

 

Quote

He's made billions of dollars in the private sector, playing by the same rules everyone else does.  He has

far more acumen than most anyone else in government and private enterprise.

Your characterization of him as anything other than wildly successful is nothing more than standard leftist playbooking:  IE anyone who doesn't understand how wise and dynamic liberal policy is, is a moron.  Your side of the aisle has been doing this for literally decades.

The truth is that you're simply wrong, simple, and mean spirited.  And you're losing.  Badly.

To your earlier response, no, that's not what you were talking about.  The board records what you type, and any disagreement by you at this point is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.  But even if that was what you were talking about, which it wasn't, and you betrayed with your own words, you're still wrong:  Domestic steel production is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a pillar of national security.  Nations working to skirt American interests to those ends pose a direct threat to national security to those ends.  Tariffs are a corrective slap on the wrist to nations who have done/ are doing this, and are easily reversible once those nations get their houses in order.

The fact is that your dislike of President Trump, Republicans, and conservatives has colored your opinion so strongly that you reject wholesale the actual motives of policy drivers from that side of the aisle, and have instead decided to substitute your own warped reality for what is actually happening.

 

Because of this you have invalidated your opinion, and have less than zero credibility in this arena.

 

To the bolded portion, you responded with this, in your adorable red font:

 

Quote

People like Sen Ben Sasse don't buy your BS!

 

For the reader, you can directly reference the post in question here:

 

 

 

@26CornerBlitz

 

You will note that in exactly zero places, ever, at any point did I contend, in your own words "opposition to tariff policy is some liberal idea".

 

Again, that didn't happen.  That's an outright fabrication, by you, attempting to cover your ass for some stupid **** you said, which makes you look like the fool that you are.

 

To revisit my prior post:   "You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse.

 

I didn't "declare it to be true".

 

I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true.

 

That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold your hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's.

 

Do better."

 

Quote

You did no such thing other than engage in self congratulations. 

 

Here's the entirety my contributions to our discussion surrounding your injection of Ben Sasse (edited out non-Sasse related content for the ease of the reader):

 

1.  "I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here.  He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are.

 

<snip>

 

As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible?  If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion."

 

2.  "This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

 

Allow me to help you:  You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case.  In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise.

 

This was your unsolicited choice.

 

What you left out was why you leveraged his position.  With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts.

 

The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions.  In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions:  reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says.

 

That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious.  You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now."

 

3.  "But we aren't talking about political independence.  We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument.  Which is a logical fallacy.

 

Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is."

 

@26CornerBlitz

 

As the reader can plainly see, there's very much there in the way of detailed explanation; and very little, if any thing at all, in the way of self-congratulations.

 

You must not be familiar with the way message boards work:  the things we type and contribute are saved by the message board.  I, or anyone else, can go back and read them and see that you're either an idiot, a liar, or both.

 

Quote

I wasn't referring to a political party you moron. I'm talking about the Trumpian party line that you buy and attempt to sell here.

 

Ohhh... right, right.

 

Forgive me.

 

The Trumpian party line. 

 

Because that's common usage and understanding when someone talks about the concept of "party lines" within the realm of American politics. 

 

I'm sure that's exactly what you meant.

 

What with the level of intellectual honesty you've been displaying here, everyone is sure to take you very seriously.

 

Quickly though, what's the "Trumpian party line", who engages with it; and what makes it incorrect?

 

Certainly not your bare assertions that "Trump is a moron". 

 

Explain why he's wrong.

 

Quote

I'm laughing at your pseudo arguments that you bring forward. 

 

ALOL

 

Sure you are.

 

Lot's of people laugh while they're getting absolutely battered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

https://japantoday.com/category/crime/kobe-steel-likely-to-be-indicted-over-quality-data-fabrication-1?comment-order=latest

 

Steel is 100% a national security issue. Importing it endangers our own ability to maintain and build our weapons of war and defense. The DOJ is launching it's own probe into Kobe. 

[Foxx]

20 hours ago, Iron Maiden said:

 

I try not to...but I think believing Canada is a National threat to the USA is as close as stupid comes....

 

Show me where I am " spouting liberal asshattery " .....Is it when I say I agree with Trump's agenda but disagree with the way he's going about it...you know...when he's acting like a total jerk.....

 

All resources are important...the # 1 important resource on this planet is fresh water....Canada has the most fresh water on the planet....I say we stay friends with them and stop treating them like ****....

 

BTW, I'm a proud republican...always have, always will...

you know what this reminds me of?  someone who always talks about how great the Pats are yet they claim to be a Bills fan. 

surprising they are one in the same, not really.....

[26CornerBlitz]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Actually, I'm speaking from a place of knowledge because I bothered to read and understand what has been happening with the global steel industry; along with the President's policy prescriptions to address them, unlike you.  I understand very well, I just happen to disagree you. 

 

The domestic steel industry went into decline for the same reason many of our production industries have, as the US became a debt driven service economy and stopped producing.  Over the decades we found ourselves in the untenable position of not having the production capacity to produce a commodity that is vital to our domestic security in ever sense of the word:  IE.  We have placed a key pillar of our sovereignty and security in the hands of competitor nations who do not have the best interests of the United States on their agenda.  To compound the problem, the imported steel is garbage.  It's called  global trade idiot. 

 

As such, in order to stimulate our own domestic production, and return to a high quality supply of steel; tariffs are being placed on the nations producing the flawed product, and to those helping them skirt our policies.  Tell this to the president you worship because none of his buildings that he plasters his name all over have American Steel.  He's full of **** just as you are with this phony argument. https://aflcio.org/2016/10/12/six-facts-donald-trumps-use-chinese-steel

 

Again, it would behoove you to actually understand what you're talking about before popping off at the mouth.

 

This is a painfully stupid line of reasoning.  You're making it abundantly clear that you don't understand modern geo-politics.  What is it that you don't understand about all nations meddling in the elections of all other nations?  

 

We do it to others.  In fact, we have an entire intel agency whose existence is dedicated to it.  Other nations do it to us, including our traditional allies in Germany, England, France, Canada, Australia, and Israel.  We do it to our allies as well.  It is, quite literally, how the world works. More simple minded rationalizing of what the Russians and Putin did here. 

 

But now, "because Trump", you'd rather engage in overt acts of war with nuclear powers instead of engaging in diplomacy.   Never posted that and it's more of your intellectually dishonest nonsense. 

 

That's asinine.  It's a moronic position that no serious person should entertain.

 

 

This is an outright fabrication by you.  A quick web search will show you no shortage of evidence that you're simply making things up as you go

 

An example:  White House Press Briefing, February 20, 2018:

 

"We have spent a lot of time working on cyber security, focusing on protecting the fairness on our elections. And, as I said, the department of homeland security met with state and local officials just over the last several weeks along with election vendors to make sure our election system is secure. They met with state and private officials on how best to secure the election system from foreign interference. We’re not the only targets of foreign interference, and we’re working with our allies on a daily basis to make sure we’re following best practices. This has been a topic of conversation with multiple foreign heads of state. President Trump and the administration [take the stance] that actions that interference in our elections will have consequences. And we’ll continue to impose consequences in response to Russian cyber attacks. Just last week we called out Russia by name, it was one of the first times you’ve seen something like that take place.” Stop quoting WH briefings that that often don't lineup with what comes out of the mouth of the fool that Trump is.  

 

Another example was the President's own tweets yesterday.

 

Simply put, you're lying. Simply put what comes out of the WH Briefing Room is not the same as what Trump says ot tweets as evidenced by today's embarrassing disaster. Know and undersatnd the difference. 

 

The sovereign states that we are engaging with in trade wars cannot afford to do so in a protracted manner, where as the United States is in a position where we can.

 

Under the status quo the United States has paid the freight for the entire world for decades while we've simultaneously eroded our own economic base.

 

Your policy preference is what, exactly?  Keep bending over, and attend our poorly structured deals which have America subsidizing everyone else at the expense of our citizens?

 

The trade wars will not last forever, and America is bargaining from a position of strength; and will result in better trade deals which benefit Americans and make us more prosperous. We'll see about your declarative statement and I'm not the only one who doubts your confidence in what will be an escalating trade war.  Gary Cohn for example. 

 

 

This is a bare assertion.

 

I have outlined why the President is engaging in tariff policy.

 

I, myself, am a free trade advocate; but free trade only works when both sides engage in it.  Otherwise, it doesn't exist.  To remedy the current situation, and bring ourselves to a situation where something closer to free trade is possible, there must be some growing pains.  There are no easy paths out of a difficult situation, and the status quo is completely untenable.

 

Tariffs are a lever the President can pull towards those ends, and he is operating under the Constitutional scope of the Executives delegated powers.

 

 

So we're back to this:  Your argument really is that domestic steel production is not a national security concern/issue.

 

Well, that's not really being fair to the concept of arguments, because to date you haven't made one.  You pitched a fit, and acted like a two year old; but you haven't explained why steel, which is essential to our national defense, and nearly 100% of our domestic infrastructure including roads, bridges, and our energy grid, along with our capacity to produce and supply food to our population is not a national security concern.

 

You've petulantly denied it all throughout your tantrum, but you haven't explained it.

 

Please do so now.

 

 

This isn't a coherent sentence, but I think I know what you're trying to communicate, because after engaging with you for as long as I have, I have become fluent in "unrepentant !@#$wit"; so please sit back and enjoy while I "show refute" your muppetry.

 

This is the post I made, to which you responded with your stack of Ben Sasse logical fallacies:

 

 

To the bolded portion, you responded with this, in your adorable red font:

 

 

For the reader, you can directly reference the post in question here:

 

 

 

@26CornerBlitz

 

You will note that in exactly zero places, ever, at any point did I contend, in your own words "opposition to tariff policy is some liberal idea".

 

Again, that didn't happen.  That's an outright fabrication, by you, attempting to cover your ass for some stupid **** you said, which makes you look like the fool that you are.

 

To revisit my prior post:   "You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse.

 

I didn't "declare it to be true".

 

I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true.

 

That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold your hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's.

 

Do better."

 

 

Here's the entirety my contributions to our discussion surrounding your injection of Ben Sasse (edited out non-Sasse related content for the ease of the reader):

 

1.  "I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here.  He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are.

 

<snip>

 

As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible?  If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion."

 

2.  "This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

 

Allow me to help you:  You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case.  In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise.

 

This was your unsolicited choice.

 

What you left out was why you leveraged his position.  With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts.

 

The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions.  In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions:  reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says.

 

That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious.  You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now."

 

3.  "But we aren't talking about political independence.  We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument.  Which is a logical fallacy.

 

Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is." Speak to why you linked to some opinion piece on substandard foreign steel. Oh I know it's to have another source to buttress an argument.  

 

@26CornerBlitz

 

As the reader can plainly see, there's very much there in the way of detailed explanation; and very little, if any thing at all, in the way of self-congratulations.

 

You must not be familiar with the way message boards work:  the things we type and contribute are saved by the message board.  I, or anyone else, can go back and read them and see that you're either an idiot, a liar, or both.

 

 

Ohhh... right, right.

 

Forgive me.

 

The Trumpian party line. 

 

Because that's common usage and understanding when someone talks about the concept of "party lines" within the realm of American politics. 

 

I'm sure that's exactly what you meant.

 

What with the level of intellectual honesty you've been displaying here, everyone is sure to take you very seriously.

 

Quickly though, what's the "Trumpian party line", who engages with it; and what makes it incorrect?

 

Certainly not your bare assertions that "Trump is a moron". 

 

Explain why he's wrong.

 

 

ALOL

 

Sure you are.

 

Lot's of people laugh while they're getting absolutely battered. Your self congratulations continues to be comical.

 

All of your post is conjectural argument based on your opinion and the once source you linked is an opinion piece.    You support this Adminstration's policy perscription of tariffs, but I don't buy the protectionist argument you continue to spew.  You actually wasted all of those keystrokes all just to show you strongly believe in your own opinions as truth.  Who would have though that. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Foxx]

11 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Another set of nothing declarations driven by your right wing slants.  Save your pseudo-intellectual BS for someone who doesn't know any better. 

do you have an intellectiual counter to his agrument or are you just going shout, 'Squirrel!'?

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

do you have an intellectiual counter to his agrument or are you just going shout, 'Squirrel!'?

 

Try to keep up instead of quoting a post from 11 hours ago simpleton. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Try to keep up instead of quoting a post from 11 hours ago simpleton. 

oh, sorry my bad. i have interests outside of TBD. you keep up making yourself look like an idiot though, good job 

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

oh, sorry my bad. i have interests outside of TBD. you keep up making yourself look like an idiot though, good job 

 

Which means you disagree with what I'm posting or are just jumping in without knowledge of what has been discussed. Guess what. I couldn't care less simpleton. 

24 minutes ago, Foxx said:

you know what this reminds me of?  someone who always talks about how great the Pats are yet they claim to be a Bills fan. 

surprising they are one in the same, not really.....

 

Stupid analogy.  No surprise. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[3rdnlng]

29 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Which means you disagree with what I'm posting or are just jumping in without knowledge of what has been discussed. Guess what. I couldn't care less simpleton. 

 

Stupid analogy.  No surprise. 

You should have cried "Uncle" a long time ago.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You should have cried "Uncle" a long time ago.

 

 Never B word!

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 Never B word!

Don't you get tired of having everyone kick your ass?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Actually, I'm speaking from a place of knowledge because I bothered to read and understand what has been happening with the global steel industry; along with the President's policy prescriptions to address them, unlike you.

 

The domestic steel industry went into decline for the same reason many of our production industries have, as the US became a debt driven service economy and stopped producing.  Over the decades we found ourselves in the untenable position of not having the production capacity to produce a commodity that is vital to our domestic security in ever sense of the word:  IE.  We have placed a key pillar of our sovereignty and security in the hands of competitor nations who do not have the best interests of the United States on their agenda.  To compound the problem, the imported steel is garbage.

 

As such, in order to stimulate our own domestic production, and return to a high quality supply of steel; tariffs are being placed on the nations producing the flawed product, and to those helping them skirt our policies.

 

Again, it would behoove you to actually understand what you're talking about before popping off at the mouth.

 

 

This is a painfully stupid line of reasoning.  You're making it abundantly clear that you don't understand modern geo-politics.  What is it that you don't understand about all nations meddling in the elections of all other nations?

 

We do it to others.  In fact, we have an entire intel agency whose existence is dedicated to it.  Other nations do it to us, including our traditional allies in Germany, England, France, Canada, Australia, and Israel.  We do it to our allies as well.  It is, quite literally, how the world works.

 

But now, "because Trump", you'd rather engage in overt acts of war with nuclear powers instead of engaging in diplomacy. 

 

That's asinine.  It's a moronic position that no serious person should entertain.

 

 

This is an outright fabrication by you.  A quick web search will show you no shortage of evidence that you're simply making things up as you go

 

An example:  White House Press Briefing, February 20, 2018:

 

"We have spent a lot of time working on cyber security, focusing on protecting the fairness on our elections. And, as I said, the department of homeland security met with state and local officials just over the last several weeks along with election vendors to make sure our election system is secure. They met with state and private officials on how best to secure the election system from foreign interference. We’re not the only targets of foreign interference, and we’re working with our allies on a daily basis to make sure we’re following best practices. This has been a topic of conversation with multiple foreign heads of state. President Trump and the administration [take the stance] that actions that interference in our elections will have consequences. And we’ll continue to impose consequences in response to Russian cyber attacks. Just last week we called out Russia by name, it was one of the first times you’ve seen something like that take place.”

 

Another example was the President's own tweets yesterday.

 

Simply put, you're lying.

 

 

The sovereign states that we are engaging with in trade wars cannot afford to do so in a protracted manner, where as the United States is in a position where we can.

 

Under the status quo the United States has paid the freight for the entire world for decades while we've simultaneously eroded our own economic base.

 

Your policy preference is what, exactly?  Keep bending over, and attend our poorly structured deals which have America subsidizing everyone else at the expense of our citizens?

 

The trade wars will not last forever, and America is bargaining from a position of strength; and will result in better trade deals which benefit Americans and make us more prosperous.

 

 

This is a bare assertion.

 

I have outlined why the President is engaging in tariff policy.

 

I, myself, am a free trade advocate; but free trade only works when both sides engage in it.  Otherwise, it doesn't exist.  To remedy the current situation, and bring ourselves to a situation where something closer to free trade is possible, there must be some growing pains.  There are no easy paths out of a difficult situation, and the status quo is completely untenable.

 

Tariffs are a lever the President can pull towards those ends, and he is operating under the Constitutional scope of the Executives delegated powers.

 

 

So we're back to this:  Your argument really is that domestic steel production is not a national security concern/issue.

 

Well, that's not really being fair to the concept of arguments, because to date you haven't made one.  You pitched a fit, and acted like a two year old; but you haven't explained why steel, which is essential to our national defense, and nearly 100% of our domestic infrastructure including roads, bridges, and our energy grid, along with our capacity to produce and supply food to our population is not a national security concern.

 

You've petulantly denied it all throughout your tantrum, but you haven't explained it.

 

Please do so now.

 

 

This isn't a coherent sentence, but I think I know what you're trying to communicate, because after engaging with you for as long as I have, I have become fluent in "unrepentant !@#$wit"; so please sit back and enjoy while I "show refute" your muppetry.

 

This is the post I made, to which you responded with your stack of Ben Sasse logical fallacies:

 

 

To the bolded portion, you responded with this, in your adorable red font:

 

 

For the reader, you can directly reference the post in question here:

 

 

 

@26CornerBlitz

 

You will note that in exactly zero places, ever, at any point did I contend, in your own words "opposition to tariff policy is some liberal idea".

 

Again, that didn't happen.  That's an outright fabrication, by you, attempting to cover your ass for some stupid **** you said, which makes you look like the fool that you are.

 

To revisit my prior post:   "You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse.

 

I didn't "declare it to be true".

 

I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true.

 

That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold your hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's.

 

Do better."

 

 

Here's the entirety my contributions to our discussion surrounding your injection of Ben Sasse (edited out non-Sasse related content for the ease of the reader):

 

1.  "I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here.  He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are.

 

<snip>

 

As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible?  If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion."

 

2.  "This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument.

 

Allow me to help you:  You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case.  In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise.

 

This was your unsolicited choice.

 

What you left out was why you leveraged his position.  With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts.

 

The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions.  In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions:  reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says.

 

That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious.  You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now."

 

3.  "But we aren't talking about political independence.  We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument.  Which is a logical fallacy.

 

Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is."

 

@26CornerBlitz

 

As the reader can plainly see, there's very much there in the way of detailed explanation; and very little, if any thing at all, in the way of self-congratulations.

 

You must not be familiar with the way message boards work:  the things we type and contribute are saved by the message board.  I, or anyone else, can go back and read them and see that you're either an idiot, a liar, or both.

 

 

Ohhh... right, right.

 

Forgive me.

 

The Trumpian party line. 

 

Because that's common usage and understanding when someone talks about the concept of "party lines" within the realm of American politics. 

 

I'm sure that's exactly what you meant.

 

What with the level of intellectual honesty you've been displaying here, everyone is sure to take you very seriously.

 

Quickly though, what's the "Trumpian party line", who engages with it; and what makes it incorrect?

 

Certainly not your bare assertions that "Trump is a moron". 

 

Explain why he's wrong.

 

 

ALOL

 

Sure you are.

 

Lot's of people laugh while they're getting absolutely battered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the bot crushed under the weight of his own foolishness.

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

do you have an intellectiual counter to his agrument or are you just going shout, 'Squirrel!'?

 

Anyone else see the irony in a guy named Foxx calling out a squirrel? ?

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

10 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

And the bot crushed under the weight of his own foolishness.

 

joecrappack taliking about foolishness after supporting Russian meddling. You are a stooge in addition to being an IP thief with no honesty. 

 

No wonder you support Putin. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[DC Tom]

I can't believe 26 is standing up to the three -four?  Five? - of you this well.  He's a low-watt light bulb, any two of you should have chased him, broken and bleeding, to the baseball forum by now.  Have you fools learned nothing from me?  This is the best you have?

 

26, I apologize for the quality of abuse you're getting here today.  After 15 years of watching me, I'd have hoped these animals would have learned something.  Please be assured that their grotesque inability to string together a coherent insult in no way diminishes the depths of you brainlessness, and I hope their considerable deficiencies in no way encourages you to continue pasting tweets here.

 

Sincerely, etc., etc...

[Joe Miner]

Give 26 a break.

 

It's tough when he can't retweet 6 other people's answers to Tasker.

 

He has the exact same debate skills as tibs, he just doesn't randomly spout quite the same level of stupidity.

[26CornerBlitz]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

I can't believe 26 is standing up to the three -four?  Five? - of you this well.  He's a low-watt light bulb, any two of you should have chased him, broken and bleeding, to the baseball forum by now.  Have you fools learned nothing from me?  This is the best you have?

 

26, I apologize for the quality of abuse you're getting here today.  After 15 years of watching me, I'd have hoped these animals would have learned something.  Please be assured that their grotesque inability to string together a coherent insult in no way diminishes the depths of you brainlessness, and I hope their considerable deficiencies in no way encourages you to continue pasting tweets here.

 

Sincerely, etc., etc...

 

The depths of you brainlessness.  That mirror got you again.  

Edited July 17, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

I can't believe 26 is standing up to the three -four?  Five? - of you this well.  He's a low-watt light bulb, any two of you should have chased him, broken and bleeding, to the baseball forum by now.  Have you fools learned nothing from me?  This is the best you have?

 

26, I apologize for the quality of abuse you're getting here today.  After 15 years of watching me, I'd have hoped these animals would have learned something.  Please be assured that their grotesque inability to string together a coherent insult in no way diminishes the depths of you brainlessness, and I hope their considerable deficiencies in no way encourages you to continue pasting tweets here.

 

Sincerely, etc., etc...

 

He’s like an intellectual weeble wobble. Flick him around and he just pops back up. Even buftex has more depth than the bot.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

He’s like an intellectual weeble wobble. Flick him around and he just pops back up. Even buftex has more depth than the bot.

 

You are nothing more than a dishonest dweeb whack job.