***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

To Deuce King's post, not yours. So you don't know for a fact that they read what you posted.

Responses to both. Kind of how you’re responding now.

 

[dwalk31]

Just because you say something doesn't mean that everyone has heard or read it.

Just because they've heard something doesn't mean that they comprehend it.

Just because they comprehend something doesn't mean they know it to be true.

Is your point that him calling me white after I told him I’m black, and that I found the statement offensive, is not disrespectful?

And that just because other posters liked and commented doesn’t mean they read/understood that I found it offensive?

If so, then I respect your opinion. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[dwalk31]

The example I gave is a perfect fit for the criteria you set in the quote I responded too. I find your response argument utterly ridiculous.

That Trump had knowledge his statement was false is not a mere assumption. Mike Pence conceded the truth the day before. There’s simply no chance whatsoever that the shortage of test kits, a national security threat, wouldn’t have been brought to Trump’s attention repeatedly in either the PDB or coronavirus taskforce briefings. It’s inconceivable.

Even if I were to hypothetically accept that the first statement was not a lie, that then does not apply to the March 10 statement where he doubled down on the initial false claim. In the days after his first remarks,the falsehood of his claim was all over the press and reporters questioned him about it.
“That’s CNN, fake news”, Trump responded when asked to explain the discrepancy between his statements and Mike Pence conceding the supply shortage, as well as the countless hospitals and medical association. If, hypothetically he didn’t know it was false on March 6, he unequivocally knew by March 10 when he doubled down.


As for your question, I can’t really properly answer it because I don’t have sufficient knowledge of the ACA to gauge how realistic “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was, if at all. Likewise I’m not sure how the alterations to the bill during negotiations and Lieberman’s vote might have changed how realistic “keep your doctor” was.
Obama is a very intelligent man so I’m leaning towards a lie. I think Obama had to have been in a position to know whether or not that was by any means a realistic goal.
So based on my limited ACA knowledge, I would argue Obama lied.
The clear motive for a man like Obama would be to lessen people’s concerns and anti-ACA views by misleading them.

At least you are consistent. I would not consider that a lie by Obama. But if you would, that explains your thoughts on this as well.

It seems that all presidents probably lie to the public using that analysis.

Like I said earlier, if you want to classify it as a lie, that’s fine. I respect it. I just think untrue statement is probably more accurate.

 

[mister friendly]

Carol helped me understand why people hated Hillary Clinton.

Same tone of voice, mannerisms and too cool demeanor considering the circumstances.

 

[IATT]

Responses to both. Kind of how you’re responding now.

 

[Wargames]

Bring that shipment back

 

[Methodical Management]

Is your point that him calling me white after I told him I’m black, and that I found the statement offensive, not disrespectful?

And that just because other posters liked and commented doesn’t mean they read/understood that I found it offensive?

If so, then I respect your opinion. But we can agree to disagree.

Is it?

I'm just trying to reconcile your standards.

You posted in the thread that you are Black, and that you don't appreciate allegations to the contrary - but his statements could be based on his beliefs at that particular time. How can you be certain that he knew you were Black at the time of his posts?

The situation is fluid and the factual nature of certain information changes rapidly. One day, you're Black, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the President is tweeting, "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!" Three weeks later, Barack Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya, you're White, and COVID-19 was a "very unforeseen thing" that "just snuck up on us."

Who's to say? The truth changes from moment to moment.

You're choosing to make an assumption that deuce king knows that you're Black and find it offensive to state otherwise. You could also not make that assumption.
I'm not sure what is gained by referring to the statements as disrespectful instead of just saying they were false statements.

I think disrespect, and insults generally, require an intent to demean. Are you implying that there's something wrong with being White?

What if deuce king sincerely believes that you're White? He seems like the type of person who ad libs and shoots from the hip.

 

[AEA18]

dwalk31

 

[dwalk31]

Is it?

I'm just trying to reconcile your standards.

You posted in the thread that you are Black, and that you don't appreciate allegations to the contrary - but his statements could be based on his beliefs at that particular time. How can you be certain that he knew you were Black at the time of his posts?

The situation is fluid and the factual nature of certain information changes rapidly. One day, you're Black, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the President is tweeting, "China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!" Three weeks later, Barack Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya, you're White, and COVID-19 was a "very unforeseen thing" that "just snuck up on us."

Who's to say? The truth changes from moment to moment.

You're choosing to make an assumption that deuce king knows that you're Black and find it offensive to state otherwise. You could also not make that assumption.
I'm not sure what is gained by referring to the statements as disrespectful instead of just saying they were false statements.

I think disrespect, and insults generally, require an intent to demean. Are you implying that there's something wrong with being White?

What if deuce king sincerely believes that you're White? He seems like the type of person who ad libs and shoots from the hip.

While I appreciate what you are attempting to do. The reality is that disrespect and lies have different definitions. A lie requires an intent to deceive. Disrespect is a lack of courtesy. Using my standard for a lie to explain away disrespect creates a weak analogy.

It does not matter, as it relates to disrespect, if deuce king believes I am white. It doesn't matter, as it relates to disrespect, if it is true. What matters, as it relates to disrespect, is that I communicated that I was offended and he continued.

Let's take an example that will likely resonate:

A person on this site identifies as a female and prefers pronouns she, her and hers. She communicates with other posters that these are her preferred pronouns. The other posters, after receiving this information, continue to misgender the poster by using pronouns like he, him and his. In this scenario, it is disrespectful no matter whether the poster is actually a female or not. Even if the other posters sincerely believe that the poster is male.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with being a male. Just as a black man being offended by being called white does not suggest that there is anything wrong with being white.

Do you disagree with that example?

 

[dacomeup]

Now all Presidents lie is the defense used to justify the lies of a President who is telling an average of 17 lies PER DAY

 

[getback]

 

[IATT]

While I appreciate what you are attempting to do. The reality is that disrespect and lies have different definitions. A lie requires an intent to deceive. Disrespect is a lack of courtesy. Using my standard for a lie to explain away disrespect creates a weak analogy.

It does not matter, as it relates to disrespect, if deuce king believes I am white. It doesn't matter, as it relates to disrespect, if it is true. What matters, as it relates to disrespect, is that I communicated that I was offended and he continued.

Let's take an example that will likely resonate:

A person on this site identifies as a female and prefers pronouns she, her and hers. She communicates with other posters that these are her preferred pronouns. The other posters, after receiving this information, continue to misgender the poster by using pronouns like he, him and his. In this scenario, it is disrespectful no matter whether the poster is actually a female or not. Even if the other posters sincerely believe that the poster is male.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with being a male. Just as a black man being offended by being called white does not suggest that there is anything wrong with being white.

Do you disagree with that example?

Sooooo you, someone who has been caught in numerous lies, who actively supports and defends someone else who has been caught in numerous lies...

who claims to have a special definition for the word just to defend said liar...


and YOU are bothered by someone not believing you!?

 

[dwalk31]

Sooooo you, someone who has been caught in numerous lies, who actively supports and defends someone else who has been caught in numerous lies

who claims to have a special definition for the word just to defend said liar


and you are bothered by someone not believing you!?

Unbothered. Like I said yesterday I just brush it off. Don't even respond to most of the pedo/white stuff.

Just highlighting the difference in how those posts are treated based, ostensibly, on the side of the aisle the poster falls on.

 

[IATT]

Unbothered. Like I said yesterday I just brush it off. Don't even respond to most of the pedo/white stuff.

Just highlighting the difference in how those posts are treated based, ostensibly, on the side of the aisle the poster falls on.

What aisle?

Those who support pedos and those who don’t?

 

[D StaXX]

Who really believes dwalk31 is black?

 

[junglejim]

Now all Presidents lie is the defense used to justify the lies of a President who is telling an average of 17 lies PER DAY

*Documented

 

[junglejim]

Can we just ban dwalk31 from this thread? All he does is clutter it up with useless semantics that have little to no bearing related to actual topics being discussed. There are five ******* pages discussing the underlying intent of a lie versus factual misrepresentation despite numerous examples of the president himself admitting that he knowingly lied. What ******* value does this add to anything? He consistently trolls and deflect every single day and all it does is consistently derail the thread. He adds nothing of value to this thread and his opinions are completely ******* useless because they don't discuss anything of substance or merit.

 

[-Red-]

Can we just ban dwalk31 from this thread? All he does is clutter it up with useless semantics that have little to no bearing related to actual topics being discussed. There are five ****ing pages discussing the underlying intent of a lie versus factual misrepresentation despite numerous examples of the president himself admitting that he knowingly lied. What ****ing value does this add to anything? He consistently trolls and deflect every single day and all it does is consistently derail the thread. He adds nothing of value to this thread and his opinions are completely ****ing useless because they don't discuss anything of substance or merit.

This is true, and it is annoying, but other people decide to go back and forth with him. There are many posters in here that do this on a semi-daily basis. I’ve gotten sucked into back-and-forths with him a couple of times, so I can understand the occasional temptation to do so. But if we recognize things for what they are, why do folks continue to engage this dude? People can do what they want, but this **** seems beyond counterproductive to me.

 

[niketalker23]

Can we just ban dwalk31 from this thread? All he does is clutter it up with useless semantics that have little to no bearing related to actual topics being discussed. There are five ****ing pages discussing the underlying intent of a lie versus factual misrepresentation despite numerous examples of the president himself admitting that he knowingly lied. What ****ing value does this add to anything? He consistently trolls and deflect every single day and all it does is consistently derail the thread. He adds nothing of value to this thread and his opinions are completely ****ing useless because they don't discuss anything of substance or merit.

The thing is, Methodical Management knows his intentions are to trigger people and troll, yet even Methodical Management falls for the trolling and engages him. dwalk31 is effectively trolling the founder and getting away with it.

 

[dwalk31]

This is true, and it is annoying, but other people decide to go back and forth with him. There are many posters in here that do this on a semi-daily basis. I’ve gotten sucked into back-and-forths with him a couple of times, so I can understand the occasional temptation to do so. But if we recognize things for what they are, why do folks continue to engage this dude? People can do what they want, but this **** seems beyond counterproductive to me.

This.

I probably get tagged in the most posts per day in here. And am asked a question on every page. But when I respond to the questions I should be banned for cluttering the thread?

That doesn't even make sense.

We are talking about the lie thing because people continue discussing it after I've said I respect their opinion and we can agree to disagree.

I'd much prefer to discuss an actual political topic. Any suggestions? junglejim

 

[dwalk31]

The thing is, Methodical Management knows his intentions are to trigger people and troll, yet even Methodical Management falls for the trolling and engages him. dwalk31 is effectively trolling the founder and getting away with it.

I'm not trolling. But there are people in this thread who do troll daily.

 

[Methodical Management]

While I appreciate what you are attempting to do. The reality is that disrespect and lies have different definitions. A lie requires an intent to deceive. Disrespect is a lack of courtesy. Using my standard for a lie to explain away disrespect creates a weak analogy.

Disrespect:
1: to lack special regard or respect for : to have disrespect (see DISRESPECT entry 2) for
2: to show or express disrespect or contempt for : INSULT, DIS

Contempt is as much an element of disrespect as intent to deceive is to the definition of lying.

It does not matter, as it relates to disrespect, if deuce king believes I am white. It doesn't matter, as it relates to disrespect, if it is true. What matters, as it relates to disrespect, is that I communicated that I was offended and he continued.

Let's take an example that will likely resonate:

A person on this site identifies as a female and prefers pronouns she, her and hers. She communicates with other posters that these are her preferred pronouns. The other posters, after receiving this information, continue to misgender the poster by using pronouns like he, him and his. In this scenario, it is disrespectful no matter whether the poster is actually a female or not. Even if the other posters sincerely believe that the poster is male.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with being a male. Just as a black man being offended by being called white does not suggest that there is anything wrong with being white.

Do you disagree with that example?

While I appreciate what you are attempting to do, the reality is that race and gender have different definitions. If Rachel Dolezal chooses to identify as Black, that is not the same as acknowledging Zaya Wade's preferred gender pronouns - and it would be offensive to imply otherwise or equate the two.

You've said that you are Black. Maybe deuce king didn't read that post. Maybe he did and he doesn't believe you. Maybe he has an alternative theory. Should we censor that theory? If so, would we be creating an echo chamber?


Here's an example that will likely resonate:

A person was born in the United States in 1961. He has stated many times that he was born in Hawaii. There are records of him attending school there as a child. He wrote about it in his bestselling book.
His Republican opponent in a Senate campaign began questioning his background in 2004, including his religion. Racist supporters of his opponent in the 2008 Democratic Primary circulate rumors that he was born in Kenya. His campaign releases a copy of his certificate of live birth.
In 2011, a game show host publicly demands the release of his long form birth certificate. Over the following five years, the game show host advances a series of claims about the veracity of the birth certificate, and even implies that the death of Hawaii's former Department of Health Director was part of a cover-up.

Maybe those claims were lies. Maybe they weren't, right?! Maybe the conspiracy theorist is just ad libbing, shooting from the hip. Maybe he's not a conventional politician.


Or....?


You're almost there. Keep trying.

 

[IATT]

I'm not trolling. But there are people in this thread who do troll daily.

 

[junglejim]

This entire thing is ******* stupid. The basis of this argument is that you cannot prove intent therefore he could not have been lying, but if that's the case, then why the **** does lying even exist? Can anyone ever step into the mind of someone else and prove that they were intending to deceive? Like the only way we can say that someone is lying is if we have a piece of paper from that person that specifically states in their own words that they are knowingly deceiving someone with false statements?

Its a mind-baffling, dumb argument that is a waste of everyone's time.

Does anyone feel more educated by reading this trash? Does anyone feel like this is contributing to anything related to politics or the topics at hand? If not, then why is it being discussed?

 

[130122]

This entire thing is ****ing stupid. The basis of this argument is that you cannot prove intent therefore he could not have been lying, but if that's the case, then why the **** does lying even exist? Can anyone ever step into the mind of someone else and prove that they were intending to deceive? Like the only way we can say that someone is lying is if we have a piece of paper from that person that specifically states in their own words that they are knowingly deceiving someone with false statements?

Its a mind-baffling, dumb argument that is a waste of everyone's time.

Does anyone feel more educated by reading this trash? Does anyone feel like this is contributing to anything related to politics or the topics at hand? If not, then why is it being discussed?

I honestly don't frequent the thread as much due to the sea lioning that happens. I wouldn't be surprised if dwalk is a half decent person when he's not being smug. The fact that people still fall for the same game baffles me.