Double_R

This is a medical issue for which Trump is being diagnosed by assumed experts.

It's not a diagnoses. I already explained that to you, multiple times in fact. You don't get it because you don't want to. It's not complicated.

If your car was acting up and you called your cousin who is a mechanic, Told them what was happening and he told you what he thought was the issue, you would probably trust his assessment more than your own. That doesn't mean he gave you an actual diagnoses of the car, he would need to see it with his own eyes for that, bit you'd recognize that his expertise is valuable and would regards it as such.

This is the same exact thing, no matter how much you try to pretend it's not.

they have been trained and sworn to an oath not to diagnose without personal consultation

The oath they took did not factor a president of the United States so clearly and dangerously unfit for office. Circumstances change, if you are actually judging them you would factor that. But you're MAGA, so you isolate only the parts that work in Trumps favor and ignore the rest.

Not sure how you can say no one cares.

I don't mean that literally. Democrats obviously care, but they know who Trump is so it makes no difference. I'm talking about on the right where pundits will go off on any democrat who has any improprieties, then when Trump shows himself to be far worse it's "that's just Trump being Trump", as if that's really an excuse. We're way beyond hypocrisy, it's at the point where these people literally find it to be a joke that Trump can do so these things and get away with it, I guess because it pisses of the libs, and that's what really matters.

I don't think you can call him an anomaly when he's been the dominant force of the republican party for the past decade. He has essentially become the republican party.

That aside, there's clearly a difference in the standards of the two parties, you can bring up anecdotes all day if you want to, the big picture still remains. Just look at this Senate run right now. We've spent the last few weeks talking about Graham Platner everyday. No one talks about Ken Paxton whose flaws are objectively orders of magnitudes worse.

With republicans it's baked in so no one cares. I understand that, it's a natural human response, but the logical disconnect is when we bake someone's flaws in without adjusting our perception of them to match. When Trump starts attacking people with 2nd grade insults at 2am, that's just Trump being Trump. And it is. But that's a f#%king problem, not an excuse to pretend it's not important.

Senate? This guy doesn't belong in a Slum.

Great.

Now do Trump.

If a voter only has surface level attacks to go on, then the media attacking Trump a lot makes charges not seem as credible.

Yeah, that's Trump's superpower; act like a complete ass, break every rule and political norm in the book, disregard the law, disregard the constitution, disregard any semblance of human decency. Then when people decide not to ignore it, point to them as the problem.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I just take issue when people talk about this as something to merely observe rather than a fundamental flaw in American politics that should be called out anywhere it resides.

If one side says default to believing accusers and then they get accused it shows that their mantras aren't necessarily feasible. Or that they're not willing to have consistent standards.

You're describing hypocrisy, which is a potentially legitimate critique. It's when people say things like "I'm just judging democrats by their own standards" or something to that effect it does not work rationally. And that's what you seemed to be implying before. If it's not what you meant then fine.

Cause Trump built his brand on saying Dems and the mainstream media were out to get him, and Dems made it very clear they wanted to impeach him. Which makes the charges seem politically motivated.

It only seems that way based on that if you're easily manipulable. I believe it was Leslie Stall in 2015 who asked Trump why he calls the media "fake news" and he admitted the obvious - "I do that because when you people write negative stories about me people won't believe you".

Trump's impeachments were beyond justifiable, any public official with an ounce of integrity would have voted to impeach and convict. They only appear political to people who are ignorant or just don't care.

I think it is the most serious too, but they all weaken the Democrat’s ability to condemn the indiscretions of the opposition.

Yeah, the same way that the democrats refusal to get on board with the investigations of Hunter Biden during the Biden years weakens their ability to criticize Trump's corruption today. Which is to say it doesn't... So long as facts and logic still matter.

I don't think we're really in disagreement, the difference appears to be our perspectives. You're looking at this through a political lense, where public perception is everything. I'm looking at this through the lense of reality. If people don't care about that then I don't care about their opinions. Anyone who finds Platner's allegations disqualifying or even meaningful, is either deeply against Trump, Paxton, and their entire ilk already, or they're completely FOS and just jumping on whatever narrative they can find to rationalize their opposition against the left. In either case, I see no reason to concern myself with them.

I believe you said earlier that you're fighting to get Osoff reelected, so I take that to mean you're working in some capacity with the campaign. I totally understand that, but it's part of why I don't get involved in politics. I am only interested in what's true and reasonable, politics is a game of managing other people's perceptions. I just don't have any interest in the latter, I do enough of that at home.

With SA accusations, Dems are more likely to say you should believe accusers by default, so it makes sense to hold them to higher standards.

There is no point at which it makes sense to hold one side to a higher standard when they are both competing fort the same job. You can accuse one side of hypocrisy when they fail to live up to their espoused standards, but that's a different thing.

Beyond that, I don't think this is at all about which side is more likely to believe accusers, I think that's just the face each side puts on it. Fact is democrats care about not having sexual assaulters in office, republicans largely don't. That's the difference.

I say this confidently because when a republican is accused the party bends over backwards to deny it no matter how likely it is to be true. Trump is the perfect example of this. He has openly bragged about committing sexual assault, openly bragged about invading the dressing rooms of naked women, is a well known womanizer his whole life, said he'd be dating his daughter if she weren't his, mused about the potential size of his infant daughter's breasts... And that's all before we get to any of the evidence and testimony of his 26 accusers. Yet the party pretends this guy would never...

And don't even get me started on Roy Moore.

But when a democrat gets accused, suddenly no evidence is even needed. This has nothing to do with standards of evidence, it's partisan hackery full stop.

This is a tired and dishonest tactic that's getting really old - you start by pretending we're in an arena that we're not just so you can impose an unreasonable and irrelevant standard, them apply that irrelevant standard to the example at hand, then declare that because it doesn't meet your impossible standard the whole thing is vapid and should be disregarded.

You guys do the same thing everytime Trump does something clearly illegal - pretend this is a court of law so you can apply courtroom standards, then when we fail to prove Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that means we should all disregard his activity. Same thing.

Here, you are pretending we're in the medical field giving a medical diagnoses, just so you can declare that we didn't meet medical guidelines, therefore we can dismiss everything these people have to say about his mental state and toss their expertise in the trash.

Here in reality, the fact is that Donald Trump is obviously mentally unfit for the job, and medical experts everywhere can easily identify the tells in which he shows us just how unfit he is. Any rational person gets this, no matter how many logic pretzels you twist yourself into in order to dismiss it.

And like I said before, your only out is too presume it's all pretend, like we're watching WWE and he's just playing a character. That's every bit as bad.

He'd do much better as a Republican

The overt and blatant hypocrisy around him has always been remarkable, even for the same party who held a supreme court seat open for a year cause you know, election year, only to fill a seat of their own in the final weeks of the next cycle literally after some votes had already been cast.

Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable, and Planter's scandals wouldn't have mattered one bit if he were a republican, that's not disputable either, but I still find the ease with which democrats and the mainstream media were willing to treat his scandals as disqualifying to be infuriating.

This last rape allegation is in my view the first one I would actually call serious, and even then I think it pales in comparison to most SA allegations. The Nazi tattoo thing was certainly bothersome, but when the candidate unmistakably denounces anything they stood for and are actively fighting back against those very forces, it's pretty ridiculous to dwell on that, especially if you are even a little sympathetic to the president who had galvanized white supremacists nationwide to march into the streets with their Nazi flags.

The rest of the prior allegations are all about him treating his girlfriends poorly. From sexting other women while married to "being rough" by pulling one out of a car forcefully - the victim of which went on to say he never hit her. These are sadly not things that are unusual in relationships, not even close. Are they ideal for a Senate candidate? Of course not. Were they serious political scandals, especially at a time where we re-elected a man with 26 accusers, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, bragged about barging into the dressing rooms of naked women because he's the owner and can get away with that, was held civilly liable for sexual assault, and oh yeah, has a 34 count felony conviction... No.

But the world treated them like they were, because that's how it always works. Democrats always have to be the adults in the room. Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default. That's how it works.

So you helped elect him as part of the "we Americans who elected"

So interesting. You definitely had everyone here fooled.

Yeah, I helped him by voting against him. What awesome logic.

You're entirely too stupid to talk to.

So why did you type "We elected him" if you didn't prefer him?

Because the "we" in that sentence is referring to the American people to which I am a part of genius.

As I said, it's normally a very low bar to troll people who already chose to hate you 12 years ago and counting.

What we chose to hate is the total denigration of everything we used to agree our political leadership was supposed to embody - Maturity, intelligence, civility, seriousness, decency, etc. Remember when Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about a blow job, because republicans argued we needed to "cleanse the sanctity of the office".

Yet now we have a president who is childish, ignorant, petulant, vile, self serving - all in the extreme. He's also a pathological liar, a conspiracy theorist, and a narcissist. If you don't take serious issue with that then there's genuinely something wrong with you.

Have you read it? These "experts" did not, or ignored it. Violation of ethics. AccusingTrump of doing so, when doing it one's self, well, smells like a hippo.

Yeah... The predictable throw away response - pretending I didn't just explain why this overly simplistic point you're making is total bullshit and just repeating your original talking points.

If you have no arguments against the points I made you could always just not respond at all.

You would think an orange octagenarian would run out of different buttons to push, but he makes new ones up daily. That's impressive.

Glad you find his ability to troll impressive. I prefer a president who acts like a grown up and cares about the well being of the people he governs.

But hey, you're free to prioritize whatever you value most.

Certainly brighter than the trollees.

Right, because speaking out angrily against a president of the United States who decides to use the weight of the office we elected him into to troll the nation is really a sign of a lack of intelligence.

Do you ever hear yourself? Don't answer, we all know you don't.

Clearly, a person needs high mental faculties to sustain a 12-year trolling streak among his devout TDS haters.

Right, because everybody knows internet trolls are the brightest among us.

This is your brain on MAGA.

Since you insist on referring to your original point, and that "mental health experts have been warning us about for years" with regard to Trump's mental health, thought you'd like to demonstrate how these "mental health experts" have aligned with the National Library of Medicine's findings, and the American Medical Association's "Goldwater Rule" on the ethics of diagnosis without direct consultation with the patient.

Don't recall making that claim here, but sounds like something I'd say. Your point as I understand it, is that any mental health expert who opines on Trump's mental health is unethical because they are violating the Goldwater rule, thereby rendering their expertise meaningless. This is wrong. I would argue it's the most nobel thing they could do, because they're putting their personal well being in jeapordy in order to warn us.

The Goldwater rule is well intentioned, and probably the right approach most of the time, but that was created and institutionalized well before anyone ever imagined a caricature of Goldwater like Trump occupying the oval office. I would argue it's deeply outdated. People are going to talk about a man like Trump's mental state. All the Goldwater rule does is ensure that real experts in the field cannot be a part of them. That is not helping us as a nation.

But even then, you are still just wrong. There is a difference between a diagnoses and offering their expertise to point out why they are concerned about him. The Goldwater rule doesn't distinguish between the two but it's the former that it actually targets and would be unethical. The letter is what the overwhelming majority of the experts you are citing actually did.

Lastly, think of what it says that resort to this to defend Donald Trump. If you are so concerned about what mental health experts have to say about Trump's mental health it's either because you're afraid they'll reveal reality, or it's because you think they're getting him all wrong, because you don't think what we're all seeing with our own eyes is real. In other words, you think he's playing some sort of character, in which case no one knows who the hell he is. The guy the entire political right says is not a politician and it's instead the most honest man we've ever seen in politics is actually the biggest liar and con artist. You can't have it both ways, either the mental health observations are valid, or he is a deeply fake individual scamming you. 

So no, I really don't care at all if they are violating this rule and no, it's not a reason to disregard what they have to say.

The point? That I challenged you to ignore Trump. You can't do it.

I won't do it, for the same reasons I already explained. Scroll up if you missed it.

According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, foreign investors have a cumulative foreign investment position reaching $5.71 trillion. Uh, they do not have to come here to do that.

Nice try. You know we're talking about tourism, which is a totally different thing from foreign business investment. And to the latter, the primary driver right now is AI, which Trump had nothing to do with. So you're giving Trump credit for that he didn't do while ignoring the catastrophy he singlehandedly created.

Sorry, Boyo, I am not MAGA.

And I'm not a leftist.

Tell me what "better" Oba'a and Biden did. Oba'acare didn't, nor did opening the border.

Obama made the economy so great that Trump was bragging about having the greatest economy ever weeks after being sworn in. Biden lead us through the best recovery from COVID from any of our peer nations. Both of them inherited messes left by republicans, both left economies on a clear upward trajectory, and both only lasted so long until Trump screwed them up.

Looks to me that it is by personal decision of international travelers not to travel here, not a Trump decision to refuse to allow them

No shit, what is your point?

They’re not coming here, which means they’re not bringing their business here, which is costing us literally millions of dollars and billions nationwide, totally and directly because of Donald Trump.

That's called law enforcement, which Trump is obligated to manage by law, and which Biden chose to ignore.

No, it’s called being such a jackass that no one wants to visit a country just because you’re in charge of it. It is a historically monumental failure that is difficult to even express in words. We’ve never had a president so terrible at international relations that such a thing would result. If it were anyone else, you would be losing your effing mind and you know it.

And side note, I am always amused by the way you MAGA cultists love to talk about the importance of enforcing the law while defending a convicted felon.

Are you forgetting the 2008 economic slump [No Trump], WWII, WWI, Pre-WWI flu epidemic, the Civil War [no Trump]... Boo-hoo.

No, I said within our lifetimes. But it’s truly amazing that these are the events in history worthy of being compared to a Trump presidency. Talk about a self own.

So, did you spend or invest your prior bonuses? That was by your choice, too. Do not bore me further.

What I did out didn’t do with my prior bonuses is totally irrelevant to this conversation. The job of the president is to make the lives of the American people better, not to be the single event that they need to prepare themselves for financially.

You asked me how Trump is affecting me personally, you got your answer. Stop trying to deflect.

Tell one thing he 's doing that personally affects you. Just one.

He is the literal reason my annual bonus was half as the size of every other bonus I’ve received over the past 5 years - was enough of a hit to cost me two months worth of rent (after taxes).

I work in hospitality/tourism in NYC. Our attendance is down over 30% last month from PY, which was already down 14% from 2024. The reason why is not a secret, international travel to the US is down significantly since Trump took office. We have many business contacts from around the world who bring groups to the US every year who have flat out told us they’re not coming because of concerns over what’s happening here and even called out the way Trump has personally treated their country.

We haven’t been this slow since COVID, the only other instance in our lifetimes other than 9/11 to cause this. So it’s COVID, 9/11, and Trump.

So not only a major portion of my bonus, but our budget has been slashed so many of the perks like parties and free food that used to flow around the office all the time have all been slashed from budget. Hell, I was even told to cut back on nametags for new hires till they reach 90 days just to save money (didn’t last long, but still). None of this would be happening if Harris were our president.

Good enough?

Too bad you can't do the same about Trump

He’s the current president of the United States who’s robbing us all blind while making everything more expensive for us, tearing down institutions it took centuries to build and cultivate, ripping families apart because ewe brown, and taking us to a war no serious person anywhere in this country agrees with, certainly not Congress who never authorized it.

The suggestion that any American should be ignoring him is just plain stupid.

It is still irrelevant question, given that my argument was about beliefs, not about any written statements.

It wasn’t an argument at all. I made the point that non-existence is the default position, and rather than understanding what that actually means you decided to go down this ridiculous path of claiming people can believe multiple things simultaneously which is totally irrelevant to anything I said and the thread itself.

How is it possible to violate logic? Please explain. Give me one example of existence of something which in its existence doesnt follow law of identity.

No one claimed you can actually violate logic genius. The phrase in this context clearly meant failure to abide by the rules of logic in terms of reasoning.

What I see constantly is that people don't actually care about truth.

The test of whether someone cares about truth is whether they treat logic and critical thinking as subjects on their own worth studying in the abstract, or whether they only absorb logical concepts during the course of trying to prove their points.

One of the biggest giveaways that someone fails this test is when you present an analogy and they accuse you of trying to change the subject.

I am not suprised by the decision to maintain birthright citizenship. I oppose it because of the effect on birth by "tourism" being a reason - and it is becoming a huge issue

Setting aside the actual constitutionality of the case, your reason for being against the ruling is because of the consequences of keeping BRC in place. Where in your calculation do you factor the consequences of overturning it given that millions of American citizens are citizens because of it which has been the case for over a century? Overruling BRC on the basis that this is not what the constitution says cannot coherently leave in place the citizenship of any American who only has citizenship because of it, and by extension, their kids wouldn’t be citizens, etc.

The problems with overturning it go far beyond the problems with leaving it in place.

Tourism birth was not likely an issue the 14th framers anticipated.

So if the framers of the amendment couldn’t have foreseen the issues the future would bring, that’s reason for us to consider reinterpreting it?

Interesting. Now do the 2nd amendment.

It is when it questions a claim I didnt even make as some pathetic attempt to make a strawman argument point which at same time is irrelevant to anything I said.

This is what happens when you don’t know how to read.

The question I asked couldn’t have been simpler; ‘is statement X a logical contradiction?’. There is absolutely nothing about that question that implies you argued anything nor sets you up for any kind of gotcha. But that’s what you have to resort to when you know everything you’re arguing is complete nonsense.

Why would I answer irrelevant question?

You just argued that you can simultaneously hold a belief that God exists and that he does not exist at the same time. So following up by asking you if you believe that very set of positions are logically contradictory is of course relevant.

Actually, it is impossible to violate law of identity, so literally any belief which violates it couldnt exist in the first place.

First of all, we’re not even talking about the law of identity, that’s a totally different thing.

Second, you’re the one who claimed that you can believe God exists and does not exist, not you’re claiming a person holding positions that violate logic is not possible? WTF?

I dont think you even know what you are talking about, because to be honest, I have never seen a person struggling so bad to comprehend that people can have opposite beliefs.

You are obviously trolling, nobody is this stupid.

It is only out of boredom and the practice of with arguing with stupidity that I’ve continued with this conversation.

I don't know why you are now doing a strawman

A question is not a strawman genius. All you have to do is answer it to clarify what you’re actually talking about so we can move on. That what intellectually honest people do.

believing in both that God exists and doesn't exist is not a logical contradiction, and can exist in reality.

Mainly because it doesn't violate law of identity because opposite beliefs exist in their separate spaces and aren't actually a negation of each other's existence even at same time.

This is pure desperation.

So you seem to tacitly acknowledge that holding two contradictory positions simultaneously is a logical contradiction, but argue that the holding of the positions itself is not a logical contradiction because that can in fact happen in the real world.

No one is arguing that people cannot contradict themselves, that’s a stupid direction to try and take the conversation down. We’re talking about whether the position of accepting a proposition is logically compatible with not taking a position on that same proposition. And spoiler alert, they’re not compatible. “I don’t know” =/= “I know”.

I oppose Socialism/Communism in two respects: I recognize they are separate philosophies with respect to government ownership of busness enterprises, and with respect to religion. Socialism does not oinsist all business enterprise be owned by government, but a slippery on the distinctioon. Commuinism insists all buisness enterprise be owned and operated by government.

Ok great, now what does this have to do with what the Democratic Party is selling?

Ah, so we’re down to pretending we don’t know what the word war means, and pretending I was implying that this issue has anything at all to do with me when I in fact made the case clearly and you just ignored it entirely.

Why do you even bother?

For example, my one txt file on computer can contain both claims "God exists" and "God doesnt exist". Its not a logical contradiction.

Let’s be very clear. Evaluate the following:

”God both exists and not exists (at the same time in the same sense)”

Is this a logical contradiction? Yes or No?

One can actually both accept and not accept a proposition, and not just at different times. Also at same time, it is possible to both accept and not accept a proposition.

This is a direct violation of the third law of logic. You might want to google it.

Or you can just say that you dont know if you should accept it or not accept it.

Not knowing whether you accept a proposition is by definition, not accepting a proposition.