The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

I am Dead Duck and I approve this message.







***** Although, I count 5 asterisks.
I know what I think you mean them to be but 5 can also be the opposite of what I think you mean them to be.

***** Galore was a villainess in Goldfinger

 

[Mongo59]

Dead Duck Dundee?

 

[BugI02]

Dead Duck Dundee?

CrocaDuck Deaddee?

 

[Mongo59]

Someone needs to put up a pic so everyone will know what we are talking about...

 

[fnpfan]

"Trump wants what Trump wants."........ WRONG!

Trump wants what I want... because that's what we agreed on in his job interview. Everything Trump is doing is because I told him to. Why do you think he keeps hiring chicks all around him?

You're Welcome.

Well put!

 

[BugI02]

Someone needs to put up a pic so everyone will know what we are talking about...

View attachment 75077

 

[Mongo59]

Oh hell, good enough...

 

[jamil]

I suspect no one looks at the 'entirety' of the evidence, because it is unlikely they have it. I would be fine with TLexism (not that I wouldn't push back) if it was parsed more like the scientific method; where the theorist acknowledges it is a theory, driven by his personal interpretation of the data, and he/she states clearly what that interpretation is. I am less amused when people state 'this is what Trump thinks' or 'this is why Trump does something' because it is information they just cannot have access to unless they're orders of magnitude more connected than it would seem

While I don't have encyclopedic recall of all my posts, I would wager it is far more likely that when I post, I post such things as 'Pelosi probably thinks [ ... ]' or 'likely Putin believes [ ... ]' rather than 'Pelosi believes [this]' or '[this] is why Putin did [this]'

Vis a vis the sock puppet thing, I just took your permission to use a conclusion that seems to fit the data and ran with it. Note that I give Kut credit for being the original

Oh c'mon. That's not how you came up with that I'm fairly certain you know that.

The other points, fair enough. Maybe. To a point. But your objection seems more like a technicality with which you can dismiss the whole thing. For example you make a big deal that "reality" wasn't proven. And fair enough. Is that the standard, though? If a perceived "reality" is not completely certain, is there nothing real about it? You don't think there's anything real about saying Trump cares what

Okay. Fine. Let's go through some stuff.

"The reality is that Trump wants what Trump wants and is incapable of accepting that he can't always get his way."

T.Lex looks at the appearance of what Trump does and reality looks to him like the statement above. Okay, so what can he base that on?

The nature of reality is that there are some true things and some not true things that we perceive. Reality isn't certain because no one has the full domain knowledge. But, we can use some facts to build a picture of what we think is real. To most reasonable people it should be a very easy conclusion to make that easily surrendered things weren't as important to Trump as the things he used some questionable means to get. He didn't invent a national emergency to do those easily surrendered things when he couldn't get congress to agree. It's reasonable to conclude that Trump works harder for the things he cares most about. Given his behavior it also seems apparent that he doesn't show a capacity to accept that he can't get his way. Of course that latter part isn't as certain as the former. But it's at least true about the border wall.

So maybe you might say, we'll, T.Lex is biased and that's why he's interpreting Trump's actions the way he is. Because, you know. He's a nevertrumper and all. But, because you are biased towards Trump, you might look at the same circumstances and outcomes and build a different perception of reality. So maybe Trump is choosing his battles, and that's why he rolled over so easily on some of those things, because, you know, choose your battles. However, his commentary betrayed his lack of interest. You know, because debt doesn't matter. A far cry from his stump speeches. Or, another reason that he rolled over on those things, isn't because he didn't really care about them, but that he's outsmarting everyone. But no one here believes that, right?

So what's the most believable? Not surprisingly, it depends how open you are to hearing criticism of Trump. If you love hearing Trump criticized, like any self-respecting nevertrumper would, you'll certainly want to believe the most hyperbolic version of the former possible. If you hate hearing criticism of Trump you'll want to believe the latter. So what if you just want to consider the information available and draw your own conclusions, and you really don't care if Trump smells good or bad; you really don't care that specific conclusions are drawn? To those people, which is the most believable?

I don't think the thing that was wrong with the above quote is that T.Lex failed to specify that it was a "perceived" reality. I'd say there is little doubt objectively that Trump does what he most cares about. The second part, however, that he can't accept not getting his way, eh. It's not a binary, it's a spectrum. The more he cares about something the less he can handle not getting his way, and the more likely he is to think in terms of by any means necessary. So saying that he's incapable is maybe a bit hyperbolic. He can care somewhat about something and let it go. There seems to be sufficient evidence for that. There is also sufficient evidence that if he REALLY cares about something, he'll go to any lengths to get it.

 

[jamil]

Well, since Trump grabs ***** and you approve of Trump's hiring of chicks; I'm just gonna' go with 'That's why Dead Duck grabs *****' - because, you know, it seems to fit the 'facts'

That take is well beyond reason.

 

[jamil]

Let them have their 'n-word'. They know they're trying to use it as derogatorily as possible, when it's long-since lost all meaning, impact, and necessity.

It's also a boogie man.

 

[jamil]

With respect to this most recent iteration of this divide; I will say it is much like the perception of bias in the MSM, which is to say statistical. If distortions and mistakes are not ideologically driven in some way, it could be expected that they would occur on a continuum encompassing both progressive and conservative interpretations - perhaps not evenly distributed due to sample size, but still distributed. But when the majority of the suspect interpretations line up with only one part of the spectrum, would you have me still conclude it is random?

I'm not claiming it's random. It's not random. What is right and what is wrong isn't random. It's not really going to make a bell shaped curve because most people kinda figure out what is right and what is wrong. The middle pretty much has done that with Trump. They agree with him on some things, and disagree on others. That distribution isn't a normal curve. The agreed upon things and the disagreed upon things tend to stack the same. I haven't ever researched such a thing but my guess would be that the histogram is likely skewed or bimodal.

What I see in these threads where there are accusations of never trumpers, and it's assured that it's the people at a given time posting something critical of Trump. I think that's a function of people who are capable of criticizing Trump rather than the same people always criticizing Trump. Now, of course there are some never trumpers here, depending on how you define it. It was originally coined to mean Republicans who would not accept the nomination of Trump and were super-critical of him. The people you're debating with in this thread are not never trupers. I've seen T.Lex post things in support of Trump, and things criticizing Trump. Same with GPIAEIEIO. Same with others. Same with me. And you know that because you've repped me before for posts sticking up for Trump and Trumpers on some issues.

Now Kut, that's a different story. I don't know if I'd classify him as a nevertrumper in the strict sense because I really don't think he's a Republican. I don't know.

 

[jamil]

Ahh, but it does have a meaning. It references those for whom Trump could never do anything that could be seen in a positive light or be in any way redeeming. He could cure cancer and the take would be about how he was adding to runaway population growth, he could turn water into wine and the commentary would be how he was contributing to alcoholism

I think "nevertrumper" is kinda a retarded word. Maybe come up with something new. Something more representative of reality.

 

[jamil]

"Trump wants what Trump wants."........ WRONG!

Trump wants what I want... because that's what we agreed on in his job interview. Everything Trump is doing is because I told him to. Why do you think he keeps hiring chicks all around him?

You're Welcome.

Oh. So YOU'RE the one who told him to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns? Not that I really care about bump stocks but I REALLY care about the infringement. I'm not thanking you for that.

 

[Dead Duck]

I think "nevertrumper" is kinda a retarded word. I've explained it before, but if you didn't catch that, I'll give it another go.

You guys seem to throw that term out as if it's a pejorative. Yes. nevertrumpers are people who will never see anything Trump does as positive. So what? So you tell them, why you nevertrumper, you! And they be like, huh? Right. Because we will never like Trump. Okay. Yep. You got us. Don't like Trump. Good for you. You figured that out all by yourselves.

The other usage is probably most retarded though. You say it refers to people who couldn't ever see Trump in a positive light. Then some of you guys hurl that term at me or some other people who can possibly ever see trump critically, in a positive or negative light, depending on the issue and what he actually does. Do you see the problem with that usage? I think it's safe to say that you're not likely to encounter very many true nevertrumpers on INGO. In those conversations where that term was thrown about, especially along with other terms, like "the enemy", doesn't it sound a bit out of place with the people who were involved?

Have you ever thought of switching to Decaf?

 

[T.Lex]

Kinda insightful to me that the operative definition of "never Trumper" would have meant many using the term were "never Obama"-ers. Obama was never seen in a positive light to do anything redeeming.

Granted, his positives/redeeming acts were few and far between.

 

[Dead Duck]

Oh. So YOU'RE the one who told him to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns? Not that I really care about bump stocks but I REALLY care about the infringement. I'm not thanking you for that.

Yes. That was me. I hate BumpStocks. I'm a Never-BumpStocker.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think "nevertrumper" is kinda a retarded word. Maybe come up with something new. Something more representative of reality.

What do you think about "tumperhumper" to refer to someone of the opposite persuasion?

 

[jamil]

Have you ever thought of switching to Decaf?

Funny you should say. I actually have switched to Decaf most of the time. Occasional PVC's. Doctor said to lay off the caffeine a bit. Peet's decaffeinated is pretty awesome. Can't tell the difference. I don't miss the caffeine because I never drank coffee for its stimulant effect. I drink it for flavor.

 

[jamil]

What do you think about "tumperhumper" to refer to someone of the opposite persuasion?

Well. My wife is a Trumper so...

Seriously, I think it's fair to call people who can't see the actual good that Trump does sometimes, delusional anti-trump. Delusion fits because it's basically a strong believe that something is true despite evidence to the contrary. And you can kinda tell by how consistent they are. For example, if there's something that Trump accomplished that they would praise a different president for accomplishing, but they deny Trump did something good, that's delusional.

The opposite is also true. If you would criticize a different president for doing something you think is wrong that you refuse to acknowledge is wrong when Trump does it, yeah, probably should start thinking about why.

 

[BugI02]

I think "nevertrumper" is kinda a retarded word. Maybe come up with something new. Something more representative of reality.

Well, WalkingDead has copyright issues, RealRepublican® has truth in advertising issues and I think D'Nihilist is already taken by some rapper

NeverTrump is a dry, accurate descriptive term for a certain group/class of claimed Republicans. If I'm the one who has to coin the replacement term, it will have to be much more disrespectful; 'cause after all, how do you encompass the sanctimony of a Bret Stephens

Tax cuts. Deregulation. More for the military; less for the United Nations. The Islamic State crushed in its heartland. Assad hit with cruise missiles. Troops to Afghanistan. Arms for Ukraine. A tougher approach to North Korea. Jerusalem recognized as Israel’s capital. The Iran deal decertified. Title IX kangaroo courts on campus condemned. Yes to Keystone. No to Paris. Wall Street roaring and consumer confidence high.
And, of course, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. What, for a conservative, is there to dislike about this policy record as the Trump administration rounds out its first year in office?
That’s the question I keep hearing from old friends on the right who voted with misgiving for Donald Trump last year and now find reasons to like him. I admit it gives me pause. I agree with every one of the policy decisions mentioned above. But I still wish Hillary Clinton were president.

or the sheer loose-bowel desperation of people who would turn to Evan Mcmullen to be the 'savior' of RealRepublicanism®

Maybe Church of the Latter Day Romney? Because I can see him anointing himself a modern day Cassius. Could we shorten that to Whoremons without getting sued?

I'll have to think about it