When will Trump be impeached?

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.

This is exactly what you do, Steel Rails, Martin, DMT, whoever you are …

See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing.  So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.

I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it.  Eventually.

Flash forward to the waygook.org era (I don't--never did--engage on Dave's) and you've found that the thing to do when you are wrong--for sure, not always--is to subtly change the point of debate.  If someone is talking about Israel, bring up Syria.  The military annexation of Ukraine, well, some people wanted it.  Clinton won the popular vote, well, it wasn't the majority.

The same attempt at redirection we see in the other thread about the Trump Tower meeting.  You keep yammering about how they needed to vet the info from the Russians about potential Clinton "incriminating" acts without being willing to understand that meeting with those Russian agents may have been illegal in itself.  And should certainly have been reported to the FBI.

I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter.  You should stop.

None of us is perfect, certainly including myself.  We all engage in hyperbole, personal slights, rhetorical excesses when engaged in matters we believe in.  I get it.  We all understand that.

However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.

It's safe to assume that gogators thinks the popular vote means majority.

Right.  Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic.  I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points.  He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.

Right.  Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic.  I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points.  He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.

What's boring is folks who throw around what they think are BIG WORDS with no understanding of them in hopes they can cow their audience.

No sale willie.

Glad to hear no denial.

Right.  Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic.  I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points.  He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.

What's boring is folks who throw around what they think are BIG WORDS with no understanding of them in hopes they can cow their audience.

No sale willie.

Like Michael Eric Dyson?

Right.  Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic.  I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points.  He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.

What's boring is folks who throw around what they think are BIG WORDS with no understanding of them in hopes they can cow their audience.

No sale willie.

Like Michael Eric Dyson?

Someone on your klan chapter's hit list?

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.

This is exactly what you do, Steel Rails, Martin, DMT, whoever you are …

See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing.  So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.

I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it.  Eventually.

Flash forward to the waygook.org era (I don't--never did--engage on Dave's) and you've found that the thing to do when you are wrong--for sure, not always--is to subtly change the point of debate.  If someone is talking about Israel, bring up Syria.  The military annexation of Ukraine, well, some people wanted it.  Clinton won the popular vote, well, it wasn't the majority.

The same attempt at redirection we see in the other thread about the Trump Tower meeting.  You keep yammering about how they needed to vet the info from the Russians about potential Clinton "incriminating" acts without being willing to understand that meeting with those Russian agents may have been illegal in itself.  And should certainly have been reported to the FBI.

I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter.  You should stop.

None of us is perfect, certainly including myself.  We all engage in hyperbole, personal slights, rhetorical excesses when engaged in matters we believe in.  I get it.  We all understand that.

However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.

It's safe to assume that gogators thinks the popular vote means majority.

That's irrelevant (as well as doubtful). What matters is whether DeMartino knows the difference.  I'm certain he does.  So he is simply being dishonest.   

Very good Mr C.  Very nicely put.

<blushes>

]
See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing.  So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.

You know, for someone lecturing me about flaws in arguing, you made a major blunder yourself- You left out part of the statement.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

That Clinton won the popular vote relative to the other candidates, does NOT mean that person is working for the American public IF Clinton did not win a majority of the vote.

I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it.  Eventually.

Yeah, you got that part right.

I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter.  You should stop.

Mr. C, you don't get it- If you bring up a line of reasoning, then it is fair game for someone to bring up counterpoints related to that line of reasoning. Typically, this is what happens-

"Stupid Trump and his warmongering. This is what Republicons do. Under Obama we never had anything like this.
" "Well actually, it's not just Republicans who do this, Obama did this stuff as well."
"Why are you bringing up Obama? Whataboutism! False Equivalence! Deflecting!"

If you look back, you'll see a lot of times I actually do give blunt and direct answers to Trump's bad acts. The fact that I then put that answer in context, makes you frustrated for some reason when it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with adding context. You're just upset about it because it doesn't make your argument as strong.

However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.

I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.

Also, that handful of people I've just named, is like what, 10 out of 1000? Hardly represents the population of waygook as a whole. I think that's your confrimation bias. 

]
See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing.  So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.

You know, for someone lecturing me about flaws in arguing, you made a major blunder yourself- You left out part of the statement.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

[/b]
That Clinton won the popular vote relative to the other candidates, does NOT mean that person is working for the American public IF Clinton did not win a majority of the vote.

I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it.  Eventually.

Yeah, you got that part right.

I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter.  You should stop.

Mr. C, you don't get it- If you bring up a line of reasoning, then it is fair game for someone to bring up counterpoints related to that line of reasoning. Typically, this is what happens-

"Stupid Trump and his warmongering. This is what Republicons do. Under Obama we never had anything like this.
" "Well actually, it's not just Republicans who do this, Obama did this stuff as well."
"Why are you bringing up Obama? Whataboutism! False Equivalence! Deflecting!"

If you look back, you'll see a lot of times I actually do give blunt and direct answers to Trump's bad acts. The fact that I then put that answer in context, makes you frustrated for some reason when it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with adding context. You're just upset about it because it doesn't make your argument as strong.

However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.

I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.

Also, that handful of people I've just named, is like what, 10 out of 1000? Hardly represents the population of waygook as a whole. I think that's your confrimation bias.

Woah!  They really screwed up.  Now your blushing Mr. C.
Again, gogators doesn’t know the difference between popular and majority.

I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.

 

Mr C replied perfectly as to why your opinions and long extruded essays are complete poppycock.  You really should take the time to read it more closely.  Really.  It'll do you some good.  FYI, there are few positives to driving in Korea as has been posited by many well-travelled worldly individuals here, but as you have no licence, it's not something you can comment on legitimately.

I'm just touched that Steels thinks of me as a liberal. Anti-Trump = Liberal is the equation he subscribes to.

It's also touching to see that he used "honest" and "nuance" as serious constructs in his own defense when he is anything but. Irony is surely lost on him.

]
See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing.  So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.

You know, for someone lecturing me about flaws in arguing, you made a major blunder yourself- You left out part of the statement.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

[/b]
That Clinton won the popular vote relative to the other candidates, does NOT mean that person is working for the American public IF Clinton did not win a majority of the vote.

I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it.  Eventually.

Yeah, you got that part right.

I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter.  You should stop.

Mr. C, you don't get it- If you bring up a line of reasoning, then it is fair game for someone to bring up counterpoints related to that line of reasoning. Typically, this is what happens-

"Stupid Trump and his warmongering. This is what Republicons do. Under Obama we never had anything like this.
" "Well actually, it's not just Republicans who do this, Obama did this stuff as well."
"Why are you bringing up Obama? Whataboutism! False Equivalence! Deflecting!"

If you look back, you'll see a lot of times I actually do give blunt and direct answers to Trump's bad acts. The fact that I then put that answer in context, makes you frustrated for some reason when it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with adding context. You're just upset about it because it doesn't make your argument as strong.

However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.

I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.

Also, that handful of people I've just named, is like what, 10 out of 1000? Hardly represents the population of waygook as a whole. I think that's your confrimation bias.

Woah!  They really screwed up.  Now your blushing Mr. C.
Again, gogators doesn’t know the difference between popular and majority.

I didn't screw up a damn thing.  The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now.  The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point.  If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.

I think gogators is wrong, too, because his B doesn't follow A, but it is Martino whose fundamental dishonesty was on display. And I don't "hate" the guy, I'm just sick of the way he perverts every thread with his nonsense.

Oh, and "negative on Korea"? Me?

I didn't screw up a damn thing.  The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now.  The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point.  If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.

My point was that "The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported." because, in part, Clinton did NOT win a majority of the vote, nor can it be assumed that if she did, that the person in Trump's administration is acting on behalf of the American public. Nor does winning the popular vote confer "the will of the people" or authority on that person as that is not our system of elections and government.

Much like people confuse "casualties" with KIA, so too do many people confuse "plurality" and "majority".

I hope that clears things up. I admit, it wasn't the neatest post I made earlier.

As far as debate- Get a clue. This is politics. Formal rules of debate are meaningless. This is about persuasion. Formal debate comeptitions are useless except for parliamentary style where the emphasis is on persuasion and wit.

An American general meeting his counterpart, said "You never won a battle against us." The Vietnamese general thought for a moment and then replied, "Yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant."

The same goes for formal debate rules. Applying logical rules to an illogical process undertaken by illogical creatures is an exercise in meaninglessness. All the debate in the world doesn't overcome a Checkers Speech or a Vietnamese girl being burned by napalm or Clinton being tossed in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.

I’d just like to add that someone who is antiamerican’s vote should count for a lot less than a patriot’s. 
I mean it just makes sense.   And.   Since democrats are full of antiamericans,  it naturally follows that their votes count for much less.

Given that, Trump won the majority vote and the popular vote, in a liberal utopian world. 

What is so hard to understand, trumpists?

The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

That ain't fake news.

Did Hillary legitimately win the popular vote? That is a question that can't be answered with certainty.

"But just last week, President Obama told a whopper at his last news conference that went almost completely unnoticed, much less criticized.

"He promised he would continue to fight voter-ID laws and other measures designed to improve voting integrity. The U.S. is 'the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote,' he claimed.

"This is demonstrably false. All industrialized democracies — and most that are not — require voters to prove their identity before voting....

"The real problem in our election system is that we don’t really know to what extent President Trump’s claim is true because we have an election system that is based on the honor system.

"What we do know, despite assertions to the contrary, is that voter fraud is a problem, and both sides of the political aisle should welcome a real investigation into it -- especially since the Obama administration tried so hard for eight years to obfuscate the issue and prevent a real assessment....

"About 2.8 million people are registered in more than one state, according to the study, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. In most places it’s easy to vote under the names of such people with little risk of detection.

"The Obama administration did everything it could to avoid complying with requests from  states to verify voter registration records against federal records of legal noncitizens and illegal immigrants who have been detained by law enforcement to find noncitizens who have illegally registered and voted....

"A 2013 sting operation by official New York City investigators found they could vote in someone else’s name 97 percent of the time without detection."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-von-spakovsky-why-trumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html

What is so hard to understand, trumpists?

The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

That ain't fake news.

That's not a majority of the vote. That's a plurality. That does NOT make Hillary the candidate of "the people". One could say that 50%+1 does, though I wouldn't agree with that. Regardless, she did not have a majority.

Regarding voter overcounts, I think some of them were in rural districts, which tend to lean Trump. I'm skeptical about this voter fraud notion that Republicans like to push (outside of maybe some local elections for mayor or sheriff, either in big "machine" cities or backwoods areas.

Likewise, voter ID isn't totally racial. A lot of Trump's rural poor white base is in a similar predicament when it comes to ease of access to IDs.

What is so hard to understand, trumpists?

The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

That ain't fake news.

That's not a majority of the vote. That's a plurality. That does NOT make Hillary the candidate of "the people". One could say that 50%+1 does, though I wouldn't agree with that. Regardless, she did not have a majority.

More of the people than trump. And I never ever said majority; it's the risible right that brought it up to nitpick in their efforts to defend the indefensible.

I didn't screw up a damn thing.  The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now.  The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point.  If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.

My point was that "The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported." because, in part, Clinton did NOT win a majority of the vote, nor can it be assumed that if she did, that the person in Trump's administration is acting on behalf of the American public. Nor does winning the popular vote confer "the will of the people" or authority on that person as that is not our system of elections and government.

Much like people confuse "casualties" with KIA, so too do many people confuse "plurality" and "majority".

I hope that clears things up. I admit, it wasn't the neatest post I made earlier.

As far as debate- Get a clue. This is politics. Formal rules of debate are meaningless. This is about persuasion. Formal debate comeptitions are useless except for parliamentary style where the emphasis is on persuasion and wit.

An American general meeting his counterpart, said "You never won a battle against us." The Vietnamese general thought for a moment and then replied, "Yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant."

The same goes for formal debate rules. Applying logical rules to an illogical process undertaken by illogical creatures is an exercise in meaninglessness. All the debate in the world doesn't overcome a Checkers Speech or a Vietnamese girl being burned by napalm or Clinton being tossed in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.

You used that argument on dave's in other contexts as well. But it doesn't excuse your dishonesty.

Give honesty a chance!