We we have a child running the White House

I have actually entered this topic by agreeing with your position, and I still agree trump's way of governing is short term win, bad long term, but why are you turning this into insult exchange? You actually had no reason to use insults there, and honestly, would be much better if you didnt. I dont know why so many leftists have this habit, but its literally just hurting you to get constantly baited into insult fights. I literally cant understand why bother to produce logical argument, and then always add insults to it. Your arguments dont benefit from insults one bit, but makes you seem more hostile to all, which isnt good.

Why do you find joy in causing suffering?

What a stupid question.

I don’t find joy in causing suffering, but that’s actually kind of funny cause you’re implying that people are suffering as a result of my awesome logic, so that would seem to be a compliment.

What you are seeing is me not giving a shit about being cordial and respectful with people who don’t deserve it. Fauxlaw literally argued that when masses of people do not understand what he’s really saying because they failed to properly “decode” him, that’s their fault and not the fault of the president of the United States for being clear. That’s beyond stupid, and fundamentally unserious. I don’t come here for flame wars, I want to have productive conversation, but Trump supporters seem largely incapable of that and honestly, that’s the problem with defending the absurd, there’s kind of no where else to go.

I would like to see some examples of these so-called "tough questions."

You know what… you got me. I don’t have any examples of Trump doing that after being asked tough questions, because the questions he gets asked are simple and relevant questions.

But if you want examples, start with quiet piggy.

If you really need more examples, you again, are not being serious. This is what Trump does. Every. Single. Time. He is asked a question he does not like he turns his attention to the reporter. He always starts by asking them who they’re with, which is always totally irrelevant. He then uses whoever they’re with to talk about them and not the question. It’s stupid and pathetic but again, that’s what he does every time. If you don’t know that perhaps you should start paying attention and stop pretending that people who do have TDS.

If so, that’s not journalism. That’s performative chaos masquerading as information-seeking.

It is the natural result of having a moron man baby in the White House. He does and says the stupidest things on a daily basis, of course the questions he gets asked are insane and impossible to answer. That’s not the reporters fault, it starts and ends with him.

Yeah, getting a coherent reply to that will be impossible, I am afraid.

I would like to see some examples of these so-called "tough questions."

You know what… you got me. I don’t have any examples of Trump doing that after being asked tough questions, because the questions he gets asked are simple and relevant questions.

But if you want examples, start with quiet piggy.

So the example of a "tough question" you pointed out was "quiet piggy?"

Why would a reporter ask that question, tough or not?

It is the natural result of having a moron man baby in the White House. He does and says the stupidest things on a daily basis, of course the questions he gets asked are insane and impossible to answer. That’s not the reporters fault, it starts and ends with him.

So victim blaming. At least that's a logical reason for your behavior.

Trump is a talented performer and a cult figure. He dominated the Republican MAGA by calling them stupid. People are even willing to lose millions buying his crypto coin which he tried to compete with bitcoin unsuccessfully. So he went and bought 2 billion dollars of bitcoin .

So the example of a "tough question" you pointed out was "quiet piggy?"

No, I just finished explaining to you how that was not a tough question at all. I wrote a whole paragraph correcting my original assertion that these were tough questions, feel free to read it.

Why would a reporter ask that question, tough or not?

Because it was a very simple and very relevant question that the entire country is talking about, that’s why, because it’s literally the whole point of having a press pool.

The question she was asking was why if there’s nothing incriminating in the Epstein files would he not just release them. This is as basic a question as a president can get. If he can’t handle that question he has no business being president.

So victim blaming. At least that's a logical reason for your behavior.

Nothing I said or implied there in any way amounts to victim blaming. Try again.

The question she was asking was why if there’s nothing incriminating in the Epstein files would he not just release them. This is as basic a question as a president can get. If he can’t handle that question, he has no business being president.

It was clearly a gotcha question based on 3 faulty premises and concluding with implied guilt. Anyone on the receiving end of a "tough question" like that should respond or "be handled" with a middle finger on a good day, and worse on a bad day.

That bad-faith question relies on three false premises.

First, it assumes Donald Trump is basically a king, and that he personally controls sealed court records, grand jury material, classified docs, and third-party privacy rights. That’s not how the American legal system works.

Second, it assumes that following the legal process is an admission of guilt. In this framing, obeying courts and procedures equals “hiding something,” which turns following due process into evidence of wrongdoing. That’s a backwards premise on a good day and slander on a bad day.

Third, it assumes no victims or third parties could be harmed by dumping everything. In reality, those files will include names of victims, accusations that may be pending for future cases, sealed testimony, and also innocent minors. Releasing them for the sake of political theater on either side would cause real harm to real people. It's the most likely reason why Biden never released them.

So the premises of a typical "tough queestion"

Act like a monarch or you’re guilty

Ignore legal constraints or you’re hiding something

Pretend collateral damage doesn’t exist by violating due process

That’s not a “tough question,” unless you want to equate it to political bad-premise Bullshit drying out in an activist's basement for 6 years.

It’s not that normal people hate tough questions. It’s that they’re exhausted by activists cosplaying as truth-seekers, smuggling conclusions into the premise and then demanding credit for “holding power accountable.” That routine worked for a while. Now it just comes across as part of the usual dishonest political theater.

Contrast all that with the effect a good-faith question can do for a candidate's election chances:

This is an actual tough question, not because it was a political "gotcha" but because Kamala struggled to find a meaningful answer.

Those types of genuine tough truth-seeking questions are the ones most people really look at and pay attention to when deciding their vote, precisely because it is NOT political theater.

I love TDS. Its fun to watch.

There may be relevant legal issues in not publishing all the epstein files, but you could never count on trump as someone who could articulate those reasons

That may be true, but he was still smart enough to not take the bait of a loaded question designed to incriminate him by simply answering it.

Most average people don't know what entrapment means.

From Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead", Ellsworth Toohey, a scheming newspaper hack who hates everything about Howard Roark, a progressive architect, meet in the street at night. I may not be quoting exactly, but the sense of what is said is clear;

Toohey: Roark, what do you really think of me?

Roark: I don't think of you.

Take a hint. I don't choose to hear from you, since all you choose to do is belittle me, That's a loser argument that does nothing but _________________ [fill on the blank. I'm sure you can.]

Ayn Rands philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. Her best seller was, “The virtues of selfishness. A new concept of egoism .”

While I enjoy reading "The Fountainhead," a nd also "Atlas Shrugged," I don't agree with some aspects of her philosophy; in particular, that altruism/self-interest comparison. I see holes on the argument, such as self-interest being a hindrance to being sociable and charitable on a personal basis. If I am committed to self-interest more than altruism, I would tend to ignore the opportunities I have to help other people on a personal basis; not merely contributing money to charity, which I also do, but the latter takes away the person-to-person advantage of helping satisfy need. There are aspects of "Atlas Shrugged" that do not concur with her self-interest argument.

There's a huge difference between altruism and othertruism.

I enjoyed reading her books as well as Nietzsche.

it assumes Donald Trump is basically a king

No, it doesn’t. releasing the files was well within Trump’s presidential authority, there was nothing about the law Congress passed that gave him any additional powers. All the law did was require the DOJ to release them and set a timeline.

Second, it assumes that following the legal process is an admission of guilt.

No, it didn’t. The question was very simple. “why not release them” doesn’t assume any of the nonsense you are alleging, but Trump’s refusal to both release the files and also provide a sensible and consistent reason for not doing so despite heavy public backlash together absolutely implies guilt.

Third, it assumes no victims or third parties could be harmed by dumping everything.

Again, just nonsense. The question didn’t imply any of that. The fact that releasing them could potentially harm innocent people is a point that Trump could have simply made in answering the question, but instead he did what he always does; attack the reporter.

This isn’t rocket science. If someone asks you “why not just do X” the way to respond is “here’s why…”. That is as basic a question as it can get.

I love TDS. Its fun to watch.

I don’t think it’s is that fun. TDS is watching the president of the United States spell out in writing to another foreign leader that he feels entitled to take their sovereign land because he didn’t get the peace prize he wanted and then think “yeah, that’s the guy who should be holding our nuclear codes”.

The level to which one’s mind has to be warped in total derangement to believe that is beyond words.

So is Norway more likely to budge if they think it's somebody who actually cares about the novel prize that much or are they more likely to budge against a reasonable negotiater?

What they’re more likely to do is to stop trusting the US and start taking measures to reign in on their dependency on us, which China or Russia will likely benefit from.

When it comes to this madman theory argument, you can’t have it both ways. Either Trump is a measured calculating negotiator, in which case no one would be afraid of what he might do, or he is a legitimate madman in which case there is no way you can rationally justify supporting him.

but Trump’s refusal to both release the files and also provide a sensible and consistent reason for not doing so despite heavy public backlash together absolutely implies guilt.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I didn’t agree with you genius. I pointed out that it wasn’t the question that presumed that, it was the combination of Trump being asked the question and his refusal or unwillingness to answer for it that would lead any rationally thinking person to that conclusion, thereby undercutting your entire argument.

You indicated that a non-answer is an implication of guilt, which is the textbook definition of a loaded question.

On that, we most definitely agree. That's basic common sense, no genius mind required.

and also provide a sensible and consistent reason...

You then indicated that the only "correct" answer that avoids every implication of guilt from your loaded question is this answer. The respondent must provide a “sensible and consistent reason,” but the only answer you consider “correct” is one filtered through your own assumptions and bias. In other words, even a supposedly correct and compliant answer still implicates guilt in your mind.

That’s what makes the question dishonest: guilt is baked in regardless of the response.

Simple stuff, really.

I really wonder why American activists cosplaying as journalists even go through the motions of harassing presidents with loaded questions and performative journalism. Why not just scream "Orangemanbad" into his face instead? It would get the same desired reaction for the news clips without the clumsy mechanics of performative theater.

Again, thanks for agreeing with me, and I hope you agree that this "reporter" could do better at ragebaiting a president.

In before: this gets reframed as “the president is childish and gets enraged by simple questions.” or some other "but Trump" deflection.

Temperament is irrelevant. A calm and mature person doesn’t magically turn a loaded question into an honest one. The question is structured so no answer from any person can avoid an implication of guilt, even Biden when he called a person asking a loaded question a "Stupid son of a bitch"

Attacking the responder instead of the question just confirms our point about loaded questions.

You indicated that a non-answer is an implication of guilt, which is the textbook definition of a loaded question.

Wrong. A loaded question is one in which the premises built into it are either false are at the very least disputed. That’s not what happened here.

The implication of guilt is not a product of the reporters assumptions, it’s the result of the objective facts surrounding the very thing she was questioning him about.

Trump does have full and complete authority to release the Epstein files on his own without any laws being passed by Congress. Fact.

Donald Trump has had numerous and well documented ties over the years to Jeffery Epstein. Fact.

The question the reporter asked to which you are calling a loaded question was a follow up. The original question was “is there anything incriminating in the Epstein files”. Trump answered “no”. That’s what prompted the follow up.

So Trump already stated there was nothing incriminating, therefore that’s not an assumption. Trump can release the files himself but wouldn’t, that’s not an assumption. Trump did have known ties to Epstein, that’s not an assumption. Thus, there’s already a reasonable inference that Trump is covering something up. So when the reporter asks why not release them and he can’t offer anything but deflection… that’s why the lack of an answer implies guilt. Not because of a loaded question, but because of logic 101.

Thus, there’s already a reasonable inference that Trump is covering something up.

Again, thank you for agreeing with me. Why even ask the loaded question if the reporter was ultimately getting paid to ragebait for clicks? Just simply scream the "already inference" implication into his face, it would save a lot of time and confusion about what the theater act is. You don't really need a presiden'ts permission to just hurl the premises of a loaded question into his face. At least, that's what successful activists seem to do instead of larpers.

Again, thank you for agreeing with me. Why even ask the loaded question if the reporter was ultimately getting paid to ragebait for clicks?

Because… yet again… it wasn’t a loaded question.

I’ve already explained to you what a loaded question is. Why is this so hard for you?

You just answered a loaded question; anyone would think you just now agreed with the premise that a reporter gets paid to ragebait for clicks.

See, that's how it works. It's easier for me to explain this concept with your own words.

There's no correct answer to a loaded question other than what Biden did. Just call the activist reporter asking loaded questions a Stupid Son Of A Bitch. That's really all you can do. For god's sake, don't try to answer a loaded question, though. Every Lawyer would advise this.

You just answered a loaded question

Yeah, this is the part where the discussion descends into total stupidity.

You can’t address that your argument has been dismantled. The reporters question wasn’t loaded in any reasonable sense, so you turn to little games and gotchas.

I accept your concession.