Raider5678

Most mature men do not. I don't know if Trump was just making stuff up or not. I doubt he was, however he's such a pathological liar I honestly can't tell. Even if he was making it up though, I don't really care. Who the hell brags about stuff like that? Or thinks that it's cool to do that?

Stroke: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2637395/ Asthma: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629917/ There was a study for cardiac arrest/heart failure I remember reading, but I can't seem to find it. You can take my word for it or discard that example. Whether or not this is actively practiced/put in use in a hospital, I can't prove. I had a friend of mine who told me things like this are used at her hospital, but anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.

An example of a third biological gender that would play a role in medical treatments and diagnosis then? Perhaps, but removing biological indicators from an ID, or worse yet, allowing people to modify that, could lead to marginalized people and non marginalized people alike dying. That's bad, right? We can agree on that?

Biologically, there are typically only 2 genders, correct?

It can be deadly to think someone is a different biological gender. Being transgender is one thing, but your body is still biologically a male/female. How you treat and/or diagnose different medical emergencies, like stroke, cardiac arrest, asthma, heart failure, etc, is often different between males and females in subtle ways. But, subtle differences can sometimes mean life or death in the medical field. This is less about someone trying to violate someone's rights, as trying to prevent medical mishaps that kill people.

Not to go off topic, but if you wouldn't mind PM'ing me the evidence I'd appreciate that.

"Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Your argument seriously consists of the idea that the founding fathers didn't think Bribery was a crime. Nor treason. Nor high crimes and misdemeanors. I mean, they must have only meant non crimes, because crimes didn't exist back then. Obviously..... The mental gymnastics required to understand that argument are so bad I'm going to metaphorically break my neck if I try and understand it. I decided not to pursue law because of the ridiculous interpretations of law that lawyers made just to fit their side of the argument. The intentions are clear. You will never convince me the founding fathers didn't mean for impeachment to be used with crimes on the basis of the idea that crimes didn't exist when they wrote it.

I would like it if the impeachment of my president had to be over a crime. It applies to everyone. Your point is.....?

I agree. But that's still the excuse Trump is using, no?

You've taken the analogy the wrong way. I think J.C. was implying if you critically injured a murderer, sure, it might not be okay simply because he's a murderer. It might be okay if he was attempting to murder you. In this case, the analogy is looking at the Bidens. If Trump believed they did wrong, then he had reason to investigate them. That is the excuse Trump is using. Right or wrong, that's basically the gist of it.

To be honest, not really. I highly doubt that that amount of money would have changed much coming in late July as opposed to early September. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ukrainians simply borrowed money using the incoming money as collateral. I suspect the effect of the money being delayed was minimal. Had it been years, or had it been canceled all together, then maybe it would have more of an effect. The total cost of this war is going to be tens of billions of Euro's. 400 million dollars coming in 2 months later then expected wasn't going to do much. That being said, whether or not it had an effect or not doesn't matter to me. It's the whole idea that there's a jackass in the white house who thinks doing this type of stuff is perfectly okay.

FTFY

Nonsense. Trump leans Trumpism.

Trump claimed just 44% of the Republican Primary votes. Why did he win then? Because the other votes by the majority of Republicans were split between Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz. Had Rubio and Kasich dropped earlier, I highly suspect Cruz would be our president right now, not Trump. This was a case where a candidate won because the biggest contenders split the vote between them. And even then, of those 44% I find it highly unbelievable that they all "like" Trump's nastiness, sarcasm, cynicism, nor narcissism. Your claims are unsupported. Where did you get your numbers? Also, you've seemingly fundamentally changed your argument from saying that 1/3rd of American's liked Trump being a con, to now 1/3rd of Americans being susceptible to a clever con. I'm not saying you're changing your argument on purposes or anything, I suspect it's just a slip of the keyboard. However they are fundamentally very different things, and I'd like to know which you think it is. And finally, once again, terming 100 million people as the suckers of America is NOT the way to rally support for impeachment. I have a lot of discussions with a lot of people of many different political backgrounds. I can usually have a nice, civil conversation. If I opened it up with "Hello, Sucker of America, let me tell you why I disagree with you" it'd go horrible.

Man, I was really close to being on point with that joke.

Ah, alright then.

Has the ability to delete posts been added? I recently got this notification: However, upon going to that thread, my post was the last one. 21 hours ago. So how could somebody quote me just 16 hours ago? I thought editing posts was disabled after like 60 minutes? I've covered the name just in case, however I will say it was a mod. So maybe it's something only Mods can do? I never got a chance to see what it was, so I'm just curious.

To me, a half truth is a lie. "I gave $1000 to a poor kid with cancer. Okay. I didn't give $1000. I gave $500. Same thing." Additionally, I didn't cite statistics on lying because the statistics on lying seemed implicit to me. I.E. Trump tells the truth just 15% of the time. I.E. he lies 85% of the time. For future reference to any one else reading this thread, that is how I intended it, even though it was badly clarified. Also, how does including half truths as truths make Trump look even worse? Included half truths as "truth" makes Trump seem better actually, because now he's only lying 71% of the time as opposed to 85% of the time by considering half truths as what they are, lies. "The best lies are actually the truth, but tweaked a little." (or something like that) - Somebody I forget. And your doubt is well founded. Which is why I stated as follows: Additionally, trying to be nice hasn't gotten results? I have not been on this earth very long, but I cannot remember a time where the two parties were particularly.......decent to one another. Let alone nice. Two statements on this. Firstly, Fox news is not representative of all Trump Voters. Just because you don't hear a right wing reality show complaining about trump, doesn't mean nobody is. Secondly, if you want to hear some Trump supports who lament about Trump being an asshole, watch some videos of Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, or really most conservative talk show hosts excluding some widely accepted lunatics, led Ted Nuget or Alex Jones. None of those talk show hows represent all Trump voters. I'd also venture to say that all of them combined likely don't represent a majority of Trump supports. But there is plenty of lamenting about how much of an asshole he is. Again, this is a baseless assertion against 100 million people. This is not how we're going to get public support behind impeachment. I've yet to meet a person who says they voted from Trump because he's a skilled con. I have however, met a lot of people who voted for him DESPITE them knowing he's a skilled con. Most of those people hated Hillary Clinton with a passion. Whether hating her is right or not, is not up for debate. But that is a major reason some people voted for Trump. "Lesser of two evils" voters, as I think they're typically referred to. I get that it can seem like that sometimes, but remember, the squeaky wheel get's the oil. Or in this case, the media coverage. Confirmation bias plays a HUGE role here as well. I.E. "I think Trump voters are racist assholes." *Racist asshole who happens to be Trump support does something.* "See?!?!? I told you so." Be sure not to dismiss the opinions of the many because of the actions of a few. None.

Honey attracts more flies then Vinegar. Nothing is new here. (Numbers from Politifact) Obama told the Truth/Mostly the truth only 47% of the time. Trump tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 15% of the time. Hillary Clinton tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 49% of the time. Bill Clinton tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 47% of the time. Nancy Pelosi tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 25% of the time. Mitch McConnel tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 36% of the time. Elizabeth Warren tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 52% of the time. Joe Biden tells the Truth/Mostly the truth only 37% of the time. A single person on this list of some high profile political candidates tells the truth more then half the time. And even then, by a pathetic 2%. Never be surprised if a politician lies. It's not some new standard, it's just the way things are. Some people will look at this list and be like "Hey! My candidate only lies x% of the time, and XYZ lies >x% of the time." I really don't care. Until these numbers start creeping towards the 90%-95% range, hell, even the low 80s range, it's just plain disgusting. Would you be friends with somebody who told you the truth only 75% of the time, let alone less then half? This is a broad, sweeping generalization of 100 million people that is lacking evidence. This is also a broad, sweeping generalization of 100 million people that is lacking evidence. Vast majority of Trump supports I know usually lament about how much of an absolute asshole he is. Some support him mostly because they don't like the other party. Some support him because they lost their jobs due to Democratic policies(or due to them believing thats why they lost it). Some support him because they wanted to see something different. Some support him because they think his policies are better. Some support him merely because of his position on Abortion. Some support him merely because of his position on Guns. Etc. 100 million people certainly don't support Trump simply because "they appreciate an entertaining con". And the faster the democratic party realizes and understands this, the faster they can begin making headway in shifting public support behind impeaching this man. If impeaching Trump is the way to go, and i think it is, it will not be accomplished by dismissing the opinions of 1/3rd of the population with a wave of the hand and a muttering of "Racist Idiots."

What makes you think he's blaming MSNBS for polling woes? That's not what I drew from the tweet at least.

How are you defining bad tools versus bad actors? In my opinion, a bad actor is something with an agenda that's actively trying to further it.. A bad tool is just something that's broken universally for everyone, agenda or not. MSNBC isn't broken for everyone. Just certain people. That's the issue. It has an agenda it's pushing. Therefore, it's a bad actor. Same with Russian meddling. It had an agenda it's pushing. Therefore, it's a bad actor. Same with the other stuff you mentioned except for the electoral college. The electoral college is a bad tool, because it's not actively doing things to further it's agenda. It's just broken.

Yes. He should be quicker to use bribery to make those bad tools work like all the other good carpenters.

19 + 1 = 20 and 3 + 13 = 16 So the codified version of scam is 2016? Better question, how can you decode that?

I'd disagree. I see your point, that it'd be bad. And that's about it. It's a bad idea. I'm not sure which part of it is interesting.

Read the bill yourself before making statements for what you believe it is. This is modifying an existing code, so simply look for underlined and crossed out sections to see what's changed if you'd like to read it quickly. The section the article is talking about: It is a stretch to say this is allowing religious and political correctness to triumph over science, if not outright misleading. It does however state, that you cannot reward, nor penalize students, based simply on whether or not their answers contain religious content. I.E. if a religious student writes an essay, and he/she mentions their god in it, they don't automatically fail that assignment because the school board is anti-muslim/anti-christian/anti-whatever I do not believe in penalizing students for their religion, even if I don't believe in theirs. I don't think you believe that either. Additionally, I don't think students should be prohibited from wearing religious items to school. A Christian student wearing a shirt that says "God's not dead" should not be expelled from school. Likewise, a Muslim student wearing a hijab should not be expelled from school. That is wrong. That's another thing prohibited by this bill, and I doubt you stand against that as well. On top of that, I really do not believe a school should be allowed to penalize students for religious activities before or after school hours. What authority does a school have to say I get written up because I posted christian content on social media? Where is religious freedom in that? This bill prohibits that too, because school boards in Ohio actively practice that. (Even though they already always get overturned, the way laws and courts work, it's easier to point out that it directly violates this section of the law, as opposed to making a constitutional argument. I.E. faster legal processing for the state.)