TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#877
#877
LouderVol said:
I was going to say, how quick one forgets the lessons they don't want to learn.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how easy it is to assume you have proved a conclusion because it is a conclusion you have reached. I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't.
 
#879
#879
hog88 said:
I understand Luther. You're easily confused.
Click to expand...

Try explaining. "They both can be believed, but one can't be believed." Are you saying you have to believe either both or neither? I don't think so, but maybe you are. If so, that contradicts much of what you have said in the past.
 
#881
#881
luthervol said:
The memo is going nowhere, but it's served its obvious purpose which was to convince the 36% that trump was the victim. Easy sell.

It strikes me as odd that the trumpsters find it easier and more palatable to believe that the former sitting president, the US intelligence agencies, and the DOJ were colluding against Trump than it is to believe trump and Russia were colluding against Hillary. Very telling.
Click to expand...

well you have to realize we already have those parties (Obama's side) colluding with the media, sabotaging their own party, and holding secret meetings on tarmacs. Plus anything else that the clintons haven't been caught red handed doing. Makes the nefariousness much easier to believe with their history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#882
#882
luthervol said:
Try explaining. "They both can be believed, but one can't be believed." Are you saying you have to believe either both or neither? I don't think so, but maybe you are. If so, that contradicts much of what you have said in the past.
Click to expand...

I missed the "and" in your post.
 
#883
#883
luthervol said:
Try explaining. "They both can be believed, but one can't be believed." Are you saying you have to believe either both or neither? I don't think so, but maybe you are. If so, that contradicts much of what you have said in the past.
Click to expand...

Good Lord man!! Will you just stop trying to win an argument that's not important to anyone but you. You make yourself look crazy as a drunk by the minute.
 
#884
#884
luthervol said:
So many flaws in your post I shouldn't even bother, but I will.

I never assumed no movement in one. I said they would never move more closely together. Which would lead all but the most ignorant to conclude that the opposite sides being refereed to would be the two that are parallel. (rattled my cage? you actually probably think so)
Click to expand...

Lol. A flunky attempting to talk mathematics with someone who has enough college level credit in the subject to have a minor, specifically in calculus, differential equations, probability and linear algebra (Electrical Engineer by education, licensing and trade).

As for movement, you certainly said exactly that, implied or not. Two static, diametrically opposed points on a circle will never meet or move closer together. Draw a line through the center of the circle and connect the two points, they still never physically meet or touch.

Now ask yourself, “self, how will any two points meet when they are physically (and in this case, diametrically) opposed to one another?” Hmmm..... a little thing called motion has to occur, if you’re wanting to move any two objects closer together (your stupid analogy, not mine). Regardless of how this motion occurs or if one object stays static, the point remains.

Your proclivities for semantics are mind numbingly belligerent. Do you wish to continue or capitulate?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#885
#885
Orange_Crush said:
Hey Grand, do you remember that time that Luther admitted to us that his feelz are the filter he uses to judge reality? i.e. that he summarily rejects possibilities according to his emotional preferences?

Am I the only one that remembers that?
Click to expand...

I must have missed that. Could have been during my vacation time in the FF.
 
#886
#886
luthervol said:
It's amazing how easy it is to assume you have proved a conclusion because it is a conclusion you have reached. I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

funny considering that you are the one thinking this investigation is moving fast and using past investigations that were faster as the standard.
 
#887
#887
Squints said:
Lol. A flunky attempting to talk mathematics with someone who has enough college level credit in the subject to have a minor, specifically in calculus, differential equations, probability and linear algebra (Electrical Engineer by education, licensing and trade).

As for movement, you certainly said exactly that, implied or not. Two static, diametrically opposed points on a circle will never meet or move closer together. Draw a line through the center of the circle and connect the two points, they still never physically meet or touch.

Now ask yourself, “self, how will any two points meet when they are physically (and in this case, diametrically) opposed to one another?” Hmmm..... a little thing called motion has to occur, if you’re wanting to move any two objects closer together (your stupid analogy, not mine). Regardless of how this motion occurs or if one object stays static, the point remains.

Your proclivities for semantics are mind numbingly belligerent. Do you wish to continue or capitulate?
Click to expand...

The third option would be preferable.

I'm sad to see that college math classes do not do a better job of training the mind to actually think.

Points on different parallel lines, no matter how they move, can never be closer than the distance between the lines. Two points on a circle can never be further apart then when they are the end points of the diameter, any movement of one point would bring it closer to the other.

If you knew the irony of the first part of your post, your cheeks would flush.
 
Last edited:
#890
#890
hog88 said:
Absolutely.

Hillary was the establishments handpicked successor to Obama. Those in power (both parties leadership and the ones really in power behind them) were threatened by Trump's win in the primary, they knew that as a populace candidate he actually had a chance against Hillary. They started then to undermine him and have been working diligently to subvert the election results.

Did Russia run some facebook ads, sure I can believe that but not for a second do I believe Trump colluded with them. He's too stupid right?
Click to expand...

The other thing about that depth is the fact BOTH major parties revolted against the so called "establishment." It's easy to see both the DNC and GOP bases were sick and tired of the same old candidates spouting off the same old nonsense and were ready for a change.

How else can you explain the attraction of Bernie? It wasn't entirely about the free stuff he was spouting off. It was because he was an outsider with nothing to lose by going against the grain. The difference in the parties was the GOP recognized what was going on and allowed the people's choice to happen. The DNC ignored the signs people didn't want another establishment candidate because it was "her turn!" and pushed her into the nomination.

And it showed at the polls. As luther loves to point out, she won the popular vote by 3 million. Just not in the right states which cost her the election. But by and large, it was a revolution of the American people against the establishment. They were fed up with being told "accept this candidate or else." They showed up to the polls and picked the "or else" choice.

In a less than crazy world, there is no way Trump and Sanders should have ever been two of the three top choices. But Americans by and large decided it was time for a change and time for something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#891
#891
luthervol said:
The third option would be preferable.

I'm sad to see that college math classes do not do a better job of training the mind to actually think.

Points on different parallel lines, no matter how they move, can never be closer than the distance between the lines. Two points on a circle can never be further apart then when they are the end points of the diameter, any movement of one point would bring it closer to the other.
Click to expand...

Lol. I’m using your words against you, doofus.

Actually, if movement along a trapezoid occurs, and it does so on the closed surface of the polygon itself, this puts the two objects closer together along the path of motion, under the assumption each object’s relative motion to one another is not 0. Since you like to play semantics, the two objects/points/ideas/etc. are already at the maximum distance away from one another (before movement) along the surface of the trapezoid, and the distance IS MEASURED along that path (not across, diagaonally, or any other way).

I don’t think you want to play this game. You used a stupid analogy, and I have used it against you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#892
#892
Huff..........Huff...............We need Huff in this thread to further argue meaningless crap. Huff.............Huff..........there are 2 mileposts in this thread.
 
#893
#893
Squints said:
Lol. I’m using your words against you, doofus.

Actually, if movement along a trapezoid occurs, and it does so on the closed surface of the polygon itself, this puts the two objects closer together along the path of motion, under the assumption each object’s relative motion to one another is not 0. Since you like to play semantics, the two objects/points/ideas/etc. are already at the maximum distance away from one another (before movement) along the surface of the trapezoid, and the distance IS MEASURED along that path (not across, diagaonally, or any other way).

I don’t think you want to play this game. You used a stupid analogy, and I have used it against you.
Click to expand...

I take it you were near the bottom of your class.

You're the PF equivalent of the defensive lineman who celebrates after making a tackle at the end of a 3 yard run that picks up a first down and his team is losing 35 - 0.
 
#894
#894
1972 Grad said:
Huff..........Huff...............We need Huff in this thread to further argue meaningless crap. Huff.............Huff..........there are 2 mileposts in this thread.
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged. It's a weakness I can't seem to shake.
 
#895
#895
Grassley calls for release of transcripts from interviews linked to Trump Tower meeting | TheHill

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling for the Senate Judiciary Committee to publicly release the transcripts of interviews related to the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer.

Grassley, the chairman of the committee, said Thursday that he believes the committee’s interviews related to the meeting are “complete,” and so the completed witness interviews should be made public.

Judiciary Democrats want to share Trump Jr. testimony with Mueller - POLITICO
The request, from Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), reflected the partisan tension in a judiciary committee whose investigation has for months been splintered along party lines.

It also amounted to a suggestion that witnesses — potentially including Donald Trump Jr., who sat for an interview in September — may have made false statements to the committee. In a recent interview, Blumenthal predicted the Trump Jr. transcript would be “explosive” if released.

A side note is Kushner is not going to meet with the Senate Committee.
 
#896
#896
luthervol said:
I take it you were near the bottom of your class.

You're the PF equivalent of the defensive lineman who celebrates after making a tackle at the end of a 3 yard run that picks up a first down and his team is losing 35 - 0.
Click to expand...

Poor, poor, pitiful looter.....

Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify your wrongness and insomnia, have at it.

bill-hader-kristen-wiig-fake-laugh.gif
 
#897
#897
Carl Pickens said:
What kind of double secret workplace protest actions do you have planned? You better start coming up with some ideas if you haven't already.
Click to expand...

:lol: still one of my favorite stories from the Trump election: Loothers workplace protest. "Damnit, I'm changing up the order of my meetings!"
 
#898
#898
DC_Vol said:
:lol: still one of my favorite stories from the Trump election: Loothers workplace protest. "Damnit, I'm changing up the order of my meetings!"
Click to expand...

Not so much the order. More the content and the things discontinued. Oh, the subtleties of life.
 
#899
#899
luthervol said:
Not so much the order. More the content and the things discontinued. Oh, the subtleties of life.
Click to expand...

Eh, whatever it was it was some funny stuff. Just a demonstration of what brats loony leftists can be when they lose.

It took Hillary losing for you to run your meetings more efficiently. I'm sure the company is pulling for a 2020 Trump victory so you can double down.
 
#900
#900
Re the discussion that HRC was the designee of the establishment, I completely agree that BOTH parties underestimated the penchant, spanning across party lines, for someone that would shake things up, and not be an establishment lackey.

The GOP underestimated that when Trump steamrolled the other 16 largely more traditional nominees. When guys like Graham couldn't even make the cut to get in the main debate, and Trump just stood there and railed against the status quo and insulted people but kept going up in the primary polling, that should have been a clue. Instead, he was treated as a circus clown, to be used just to get people to watch the GOP debates that might not otherwise do so. Just to see what outrageous thing he would say or do next.

In reality, he was solidfying a base of people so exasperated with the status quo that he morphed into a real threat to win the nomination. And then he did.

The Dems took him more seriously. But they 1) underestimated the antipathy toward Clinton; 2) underestimated the exasperation out there (like the GOP did); and 3) made serious errors in assuming prior turnout models would hold true this go 'round.

ALL of that is true. NONE of that means Trump is going to end up being a long term healthy thing for the country. I mean, there are all sorts of temporary cures to a disease that turn things around in the short term, only to be disastrous long term.

I have no problems giving him credit for improving the outloook for the business climate by generally being anti-regulation, and for tax reform, which helps business. And there's been a shot in the arm to the economy, which was improving but at a frustratingly slow pace.

But are those short-term cures setting us up for long term disaster? My personal distaste for the man aside, the jury is still out on that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top