Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[ZiprHead]

It's this:

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth.

In combination with this:

Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

That’s what makes him unhinged. He says things in a ridiculous way, and even when you dig deeper to figure out what he really means, it’s still nonsense. The real unhinged part is he genuinely believes his own nonsense.

Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.

That is what is known as a rationalization. Or in a more modern way, sanesplaining.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.

Reference please?

Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

More sanesplaining.

 

[ZiprHead]

I do not see direct quotation of a political candidate as evidence of a "lack of integrity", no. If anything, when I meet someone who wants to ardently convince me that black is grey and geese are just uncommonly large ducks, I immediately start wondering about their integrity.

Sure. And Harris actually literally directly called 18 to 24 year olds stupid. Therefore, any time a Republican claims that Harris called potential voters stupid, they have completely integrity in doing so, because she said those words.

LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT, AS IS CONTEXT

Why is it so much to ask for, that the same approach to understanding nuance, context, and subtext is applied to all public figures regardless of party?

What we can VERIFY about Kamala Harris calling 18- to 24-year-olds ‘stupid’

Harris did call 18- to 24-year-olds stupid during a 2014 speech, but the clip is being shared without the full context behind what she was actually talking about.

www.wfmynews2.com

Kamala Harris did call 18- to 24-year-olds stupid in a 2014 speech, but the clip is being shared without context.

I seem to remember someone complaining about context not being included. Who could that have been???

 

[Elixir]

Number of hours worked for one week’s groceries. Lower today than a year or two years ago.

 

[Emily Lake]

Obama had fewer people entering the country too. Biden has deported fewer than Trump did. I don't particularly care who you try to lay this on, the reality is that a whole lot of people have crossed the border over the last few years, and a large number of them are being released into the US on their own recognizance while their claim sits in a neverending queue. I get that there's a backlog, but the effect of this is that a very large number of people have been allowed to move to the US on the promise of showing up for a court date a decade in the future. You can wrap all kinds of technicalities around that, but it pretty much boils down to "Sure, come on in and set up shop!".

Why do you have a problem with that policy? Your description of our border policy isn't accurate, but if that were our policy I wouldn't have a problem with it. What is someone supposed to do while their case is considered? Sit in jail at taxpayer expense? Applying for asylum is not a crime.

I have a problem with it because it's not something happening in isolation.

We currently have a fairly significant problem with homelessness in many parts of the US
We have increased inflationary pressures with 20% to 25% increases in food and utilities over the last five years
We have skyrocketing rents and a serious lack of affordable housing
We have steadily increasing costs for health care

All of these are things that make it incredibly hard on lower income earners in the US.

Allowing a large influx of people who will be directly competing with our own citizens for those jobs and those homes amplifies the negative effects on americans - and in my opinion, americans should take precedence.

As far as what should happen? Deny them entry while they await their case. The vast majority of them are not going to win their asylum pleas because they are not being persecuted. They're coming from areas with high poverty and high crime, and none of that qualifies them for asylum. But by the time their cases actually get heard, they'll be established, and the argument is going to shift gears to "oh, it's not nice to deport them, they've been here for a decade! We need to give them amnesty!" When in truth, they should never have been granted entry in the first place.

You're just making up "facts" about asylum seekers, at this point. None of the above is actually true, or particularly relevant. The current rate of inflation is unrelated to whether a particular asylum seeker is going to have success in their case or not. There is very little competition between citizens and asylum-seekers for most jobs an asylum-seeker is qualified to work. You're throwing a bunxh of words at the screen, but very few of them are relevant to the situation of an asylum seeker at a US port or border crossing.

As for expelling someone from the country who has arrived as a refugee without even hearing their case, the very idea of it is morally repugnant. Should you ever be forced to flee your country, I hope you will remember how you once talked about others who were in your position.

Are you seriously trying to claim that there aren't any unskilled us citizens struggling to make ends meet, in a job for which they can be easily replaced by pretty much any other unskilled worker?

Or are you trying to claim that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers at our southern border are actually legitimately subjected to religious or political persecution in their home countries?

You can toss around "morally repugnant" condescension all you want, it doesn't alter reality. And in reality, as a country we have a significant number of people who are already citizens who are struggling to get by, who are homeless, who can't afford housing, and who are significantly underpaid... and you're quite happy to make their lives even MORE challenging so you can hang your hat on how compassionate you were to people who aren't citizens.

Don't look down your upturned nose at me just because I think we have an ethical obligation to see to the welfare of our own citizens before investing in the betterment of someone else's. Make sure your own children are adequately fed before you start giving their dinner away to the kids down the street.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's this:

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth.

In combination with this:

Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

That’s what makes him unhinged. He says things in a ridiculous way, and even when you dig deeper to figure out what he really means, it’s still nonsense. The real unhinged part is he genuinely believes his own nonsense.

Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.

I believe both the Bush and Obama administrations indirectly contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and the destabilization that followed created fertile ground for extremist groups, while the Obama administration's handling of the Syrian conflict and limited intervention contributed to the chaos ISIS exploited.

As for Trump, he's using his typical rhetoric, where he blames Democrats for any negative outcome. I don’t think he genuinely believes Obama literally started ISIS, but he likely believes Obama's handling of the Middle East contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to emerge. While that’s only part of the story, since factors from both the Bush and Obama administrations played a role, Trump simplifies it to blame the Democrats. Do you have any evidence that shows he doesn’t think it was solely the Democrats’ fault? Even if you have proof, isn’t it still fair to call the argument that Obama is solely responsible for ISIS complete bullshit?

Alright - so we both agree that prior administrations contributed to a bad situation, and that Trump is engaging in political rhetoric and blaming Dems for any negative outcome.

How does that support your prior post that it's perfectly reasonable to call Trump "unhinged" for saying Obama founded ISIS?

You have just explained the figurative language involved, and the underlying dynamics, and have also identified the rhetorical tactics that Trump is using... all of which make it not at all "unhinged", because you clearly recognize that he does not literally believe that Obama literally started ISIS. You can obviously recognize the context and the implication - as well as the politicking. So calling Trump "unhinged" for using those specific words is a mischaracterization, wouldn't you say?

It's entirely fair to call Trump's argument bullshit - he is a bullshit artist, and a skeezy salesman, and a blowhard, and an ass.
But not "unhinged" which insinuates that he is lacking cognitive capacity and is bordering on (if not over the edge of) insane for saying something that is clearly and obviously hyperbole for political gain.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.

Reference please?

Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

More sanesplaining.

Elixir made a false claim - and his claim was based on an oft-repeated exaggeration that is intended to paint Trump as being a traitor and a foreign agent.

And all you've got is some childish taunt?

 

[pood]

I do not see direct quotation of a political candidate as evidence of a "lack of integrity", no. If anything, when I meet someone who wants to ardently convince me that black is grey and geese are just uncommonly large ducks, I immediately start wondering about their integrity.

Sure. And Harris actually literally directly called 18 to 24 year olds stupid. Therefore, any time a Republican claims that Harris called potential voters stupid, they have completely integrity in doing so, because she said those words.

LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT, AS IS CONTEXT

Why is it so much to ask for, that the same approach to understanding nuance, context, and subtext is applied to all public figures regardless of party?

What we can VERIFY about Kamala Harris calling 18- to 24-year-olds ‘stupid’

Harris did call 18- to 24-year-olds stupid during a 2014 speech, but the clip is being shared without the full context behind what she was actually talking about.

www.wfmynews2.com

Kamala Harris did call 18- to 24-year-olds stupid in a 2014 speech, but the clip is being shared without context.

I seem to remember someone complaining about context not being included. Who could that have been???

Yes, I wonder who that was?

 

[pood]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.

Reference please?

Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

More sanesplaining.

Elixir made a false claim - and his claim was based on an oft-repeated exaggeration that is intended to paint Trump as being a traitor and a foreign agent.

And all you've got is some childish taunt?

There is plenty of evidence to support both claims, including his obvious attempt to foment a coup against the U.S. government and his long-time ties to Putin, and the ex-KGB agent who characterized Trump as as a Russian asset.

 

[laughing dog]

Elixir made a false claim - and his claim was based on an oft-repeated exaggeration that is intended to paint Trump as being a traitor and a foreign agent.

There is plenty of evidence from both impeachments to indicate Mr Trump is a traitor.

 

[Emily Lake]

I do not see direct quotation of a political candidate as evidence of a "lack of integrity", no. If anything, when I meet someone who wants to ardently convince me that black is grey and geese are just uncommonly large ducks, I immediately start wondering about their integrity.

Sure. And Harris actually literally directly called 18 to 24 year olds stupid. Therefore, any time a Republican claims that Harris called potential voters stupid, they have completely integrity in doing so, because she said those words.

LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT, AS IS CONTEXT

Why is it so much to ask for, that the same approach to understanding nuance, context, and subtext is applied to all public figures regardless of party?

What we can VERIFY about Kamala Harris calling 18- to 24-year-olds ‘stupid’

Harris did call 18- to 24-year-olds stupid during a 2014 speech, but the clip is being shared without the full context behind what she was actually talking about.

www.wfmynews2.com

Kamala Harris did call 18- to 24-year-olds stupid in a 2014 speech, but the clip is being shared without context.

I seem to remember someone complaining about context not being included. Who could that have been???

That's my entire fucking point!

If you want to make the inane argument that Trump is horrible because he literally said the specific words "Obama started ISIS" and that's a literal quote of something he literally said... then it is just as true that Harris literally said that 18 to 24 year olds are stupid, and it's just as reasonable to infer from that statement that Harris is a condescending twat toward young voters.

And that's the whole point, which you should be able to figure out if you would take just a moment and actually read for content instead of just looking for any opportunity to get in a jab based on your malicious assumptions.

If it is expected that we should all consider the context and the entirety of the message when faced with a snippet of Harris saying that college students are idiots... we should all also consider the context and the entirety of the message when faced with Trump saying that Obama started ISIS. Because with context, the actual intent in both cases is abundantly clear.

And I'm really sick of this two-faced hypocrisy wherein anything that a Democrat says, no matter how tasteless, must be considered within all possible context, and any potential positive interpretation or limiting intent must be incorporated or else it's "propaganda"... but anything that a Republican or Trump says can be snipped out of context entirely, treated as if it was the only thing that person ever said, and then run through the gamut of the most malicious possible interpretation before landing on the secretly intended meaning that allows you to demonize "those guys".

The inability of some people here to objectively consider the whole picture without bias and without their own hyper-partisan leanings is breathtaking.

 

[Emily Lake]

Number of hours worked for one week’s groceries. Lower today than a year or two years ago.
View attachment 48253

Can you afford more groceries, supplies, and utilities now than you could before covid?

 

[Emily Lake]

And I'm really sick of this two-faced hypocrisy wherein anything that a Democrat says, no matter how tasteless, must be considered within all possible context, and any potential positive interpretation or limiting intent must be incorporated or else it's "propaganda"... but anything that a Republican or Trump says can be snipped out of context entirely, treated as if it was the only thing that person ever said, and then run through the gamut of the most malicious possible interpretation before landing on the secretly intended meaning that allows you to demonize "those guys".

And in case you people need it spelled out for you, I have the exact same fucking complaint about right-leaning people who do this in the opposite direction. There just aren't any of them here for me to lay into, so you only get one side.

But if it makes you feel better: Hey all you stupid republicans who keep taking things Harris said out of context and ramping up the invective to mischaracterize her statements, knock it the fuck off.

 

[Gospel]

It's this:

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth.

In combination with this:

Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

That’s what makes him unhinged. He says things in a ridiculous way, and even when you dig deeper to figure out what he really means, it’s still nonsense. The real unhinged part is he genuinely believes his own nonsense.

Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.

I believe both the Bush and Obama administrations indirectly contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and the destabilization that followed created fertile ground for extremist groups, while the Obama administration's handling of the Syrian conflict and limited intervention contributed to the chaos ISIS exploited.

As for Trump, he's using his typical rhetoric, where he blames Democrats for any negative outcome. I don’t think he genuinely believes Obama literally started ISIS, but he likely believes Obama's handling of the Middle East contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to emerge. While that’s only part of the story, since factors from both the Bush and Obama administrations played a role, Trump simplifies it to blame the Democrats. Do you have any evidence that shows he doesn’t think it was solely the Democrats’ fault? Even if you have proof, isn’t it still fair to call the argument that Obama is solely responsible for ISIS complete bullshit?

Alright - so we both agree that prior administrations contributed to a bad situation, and that Trump is engaging in political rhetoric and blaming Dems for any negative outcome.

How does that support your prior post that it's perfectly reasonable to call Trump "unhinged" for saying Obama founded ISIS?

You have just explained the figurative language involved, and the underlying dynamics, and have also identified the rhetorical tactics that Trump is using... all of which make it not at all "unhinged", because you clearly recognize that he does not literally believe that Obama literally started ISIS. You can obviously recognize the context and the implication - as well as the politicking. So calling Trump "unhinged" for using those specific words is a mischaracterization, wouldn't you say?

It's entirely fair to call Trump's argument bullshit - he is a bullshit artist, and a skeezy salesman, and a blowhard, and an ass.
But not "unhinged" which insinuates that he is lacking cognitive capacity and is bordering on (if not over the edge of) insane for saying something that is clearly and obviously hyperbole for political gain.

You’re fixated on the word “unhinged,” as if it only means mental instability, when I’m using it to describe Trump as clearly agitated and upset. His rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading, even if it’s just hyperbole. So no, calling him unhinged is not a mischaracterization. Do you honestly think Trump is calm and composed?

When I said he doesn’t literally believe Obama started ISIS, I was clarifying my stance—distancing it from the way you framed it. That wasn’t part of my original point; I corrected your interpretation to align with the argument I’m making. Trump said Obama “founded” ISIS, which is clearly false, and even when you try to dig deeper for a metaphorical meaning as you put it, it’s still utter nonsense. You even agreed his metaphorical statement is not true. The issue isn’t whether his statement was metaphorical; it’s that what he says is complete nonsense, and he genuinely believes it (metaphorically maybe).

 

[ZiprHead]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.

Reference please?

Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

More sanesplaining.

Elixir made a false claim - and his claim was based on an oft-repeated exaggeration that is intended to paint Trump as being a traitor and a foreign agent.

And all you've got is some childish taunt?

No, he didn't. There were numerous direct contacts between Trumps team and Russian agents, including Paul Manafort giving private polling data tp Russian agent Konstantin Kalimnik.

Opinion | Why the Senate's Russia report should be one of America's biggest stories

Trump and Biden's contrasting positions on Russian interference in American elections are clear. Whether voters care about these differences, however, is not as obvious.

www.nbcnews.com

Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?​

Trump and Biden's contrasting positions on Russian interference in American elections are clear. Whether voters care about these differences, however, is not as obvious.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.

Reference please?

Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

More sanesplaining.

Elixir made a false claim - and his claim was based on an oft-repeated exaggeration that is intended to paint Trump as being a traitor and a foreign agent.

And all you've got is some childish taunt?

My apologies. The term I should have used is sanewashing.

Sanewashing or sane-washing is the act of minimizing the perceived radical aspects of a person or idea in order to make them appear more acceptable to a wider audience. The term was initially coined in online discussions about defunding the police in 2020, but has come to greater prominence in critique of media practices relating to Donald Trump in the 2024 US presidential campaign. Journalism organisations and media commentators have suggested actions both readers and writers can take to mitigate sanewashing.

  Sanewashing

 

[Gospel]

If you want to make the inane argument that Trump is horrible because he literally said the specific words "Obama started ISIS" and that's a literal quote of something he literally said... then it is just as true that Harris literally said that 18 to 24 year olds are stupid, and it's just as reasonable to infer from that statement that Harris is a condescending twat toward young voters.

Since you seem to be a scholar at interpreting Trump's metaphors, would you mind explaining these?

Claim: COVID-19 Would "Disappear Like a Miracle"
Statement: In February 2020, Trump said, "It's going to disappear. One day—it's like a miracle—it will disappear."
Reality: COVID-19 did not disappear; it became a global pandemic causing millions of deaths worldwide. Health experts warned early on that the virus was highly contagious and required significant intervention to control.
Explanation: Minimizing the threat led to delayed responses. Even optimistic interpretations cannot align this statement with the reality of the pandemic's impact.

Claim: The 2020 Election Was Stolen Due to Widespread Voter Fraud
Statement: After the 2020 presidential election, Trump repeatedly claimed, "I won this election by a lot!"
Reality: Multiple recounts and audits confirmed Joe Biden's victory. Over 60 lawsuits alleging fraud were dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Explanation: These baseless claims undermined trust in the democratic process and incited unrest, including the January 6 Capitol riot.

Claim: Injecting Disinfectant Could Treat COVID-19
Statement: In April 2020, Trump suggested, "I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute... Is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?"
Reality: Medical professionals warned that ingesting or injecting disinfectants is dangerous and potentially fatal.
Explanation: No medical interpretation supports this; promoting such ideas poses significant public health risks.

Claim: Climate Change Is a Hoax Invented by China
Statement: In a 2012 tweet, Trump claimed, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Reality: Climate change is a well-documented phenomenon supported by the global scientific community. It is not a hoax nor linked to any country's economic agenda.
Explanation: This false narrative hinders efforts to address environmental challenges.

Claim: Vaccines Cause Autism
Statement: Trump has suggested a link between vaccinations and autism, stating, "We had so many instances... A child went to have the vaccine, got very, very sick, and now is autistic."
Reality: Extensive research shows no causal relationship between vaccines and autism. The original study suggesting this link has been discredited.
Explanation: Such statements contribute to vaccine hesitancy, posing a threat to public health.

Claim: Muslims Celebrated in New Jersey on 9/11
Statement: Trump claimed, "I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down."
Reality: There are no credible reports or evidence supporting this claim. It has been debunked by law enforcement and fact-checkers.
Explanation: Spreading this falsehood fosters xenophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment.

Claim: Ted Cruz's Father Was Involved in JFK's Assassination
Statement: Trump suggested, "His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being—you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous."
Reality: There is no evidence linking Rafael Cruz to Lee Harvey Oswald or the assassination of JFK.
Explanation: This baseless accusation is defamatory and spreads misinformation.

Claim: Wind Turbines Cause Cancer
Statement: Trump asserted, "They say the noise [from wind turbines] causes cancer."
Reality: There is no scientific evidence that wind turbine noise causes cancer.
Explanation: Such unfounded claims can hinder renewable energy development by spreading fear.

Claim: He Passed the Largest Tax Cut in History
Statement: Trump frequently stated, "We passed the largest tax cuts and reform in American history."
Reality: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ranks behind several other tax cuts when measured as a percentage of GDP.
Explanation: Overstating the impact misleads the public about fiscal policy.

Claim: Obama Founded ISIS
Statement: Trump said, "Obama is the founder of ISIS."
Reality: ISIS originated from al-Qaeda in Iraq, which formed due to the power vacuum after the 2003 invasion. While policy decisions can be debated, Obama did not found ISIS.
Explanation: Accusing a former president of founding a terrorist organization is false and inflammatory.

Claim: Mexico Is Paying for the Border Wall
Statement: "I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."
Reality: Mexico did not fund the border wall; U.S. taxpayers bore the costs.
Explanation: The promise was unfulfilled, and asserting otherwise is misleading.

Claim: He Was Against the Iraq War From the Beginning
Statement: Trump claimed, "I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started."
Reality: There is no evidence that Trump publicly opposed the Iraq War before it began. In a 2002 interview, he expressed support.
Explanation: Revising history in this way distorts public understanding of his positions.

Claim: The U.S. Has No Trade Deficit with Canada
Statement: "We do not have a trade deficit with Canada; we have a surplus."
Reality: According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the U.S. has a trade deficit in goods with Canada, offset partially by a surplus in services.
Explanation: Misrepresenting trade figures can affect international relations and economic policy.

Claim: "Thousands" of Fraudulent Votes by Illegal Immigrants
Statement: "Thousands of illegal immigrants voted in the last election."
Reality: Studies and investigations have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud by non-citizens.
Explanation: Such claims undermine confidence in the electoral system.

Claim: Alabama Was Threatened by Hurricane Dorian
Statement: In 2019, Trump claimed, "In addition to Florida—South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit much harder than anticipated."
Reality: The National Weather Service clarified that Alabama was not in danger. Trump later presented an altered weather map.
Explanation: Providing false information during emergencies can cause unnecessary panic and confusion.

Claim: NATO Members Owe the U.S. Money
Statement: "Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they're delinquent as far as I'm concerned."
Reality: NATO members commit to spending a percentage of their own GDP on defense, not payments to the U.S.
Explanation: Misrepresenting NATO obligations strains alliances and misinforms the public.

Claim: Asserting Widespread Election Fraud in 2016
Statement: "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."
Reality: There is no evidence to support claims of millions of illegal votes in the 2016 election.
Explanation: These unfounded allegations erode trust in democratic institutions.

Claim: Asserting He Signed Veterans' Choice into Law
Statement: "I signed into law Veterans Choice."
Reality: The Veterans Choice program was signed into law by President Obama in 2014. Trump signed the VA MISSION Act, which modified it.
Explanation: Taking credit for existing legislation misleads about his accomplishments.

Claim: Denying Russia's Interference in the 2016 Election
Statement: "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be."
Reality: U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia interfered in the election.
Explanation: Denying verified intelligence undermines national security efforts.

Claim: Claiming COVID-19 Testing Causes More Cases
Statement: "When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more cases."
Reality: Testing identifies existing cases; it doesn't cause them. Reducing testing does not reduce actual infections.
Explanation: Misrepresenting testing's role hinders effective pandemic response.

 

[ZiprHead]

If it is expected that we should all consider the context and the entirety of the message when faced with a snippet of Harris saying that college students are idiots... we should all also consider the context and the entirety of the message when faced with Trump saying that Obama started ISIS. Because with context, the actual intent in both cases is abundantly clear.

Okay, so provide the context in which Trump was speaking saying Obama started ISIS. Not your interpretation, but what was actually said in addition to the statement to provide the context.

 

[Gospel]

Claim: Calling for the Termination of the U.S. Constitution
Statement: In December 2022, Trump posted on Truth Social: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."
Reality: Legal experts and politicians from both parties condemned this statement. The U.S. Constitution provides the foundational legal framework of the nation, and there's no provision for its termination due to claims of fraud.
Explanation: Advocating for the suspension of the Constitution is unprecedented and poses a direct challenge to the rule of law.

Trump meant that metaphorically right Emily?

Source in case Trumpologist's ask for one.

 

[Gospel]

Come on you're loosing the race of metaphors. We need more from Kamala.

So, the score is Kamala: 1, Trump: HOLY SHIT!

Claim: Claiming He Declassified Documents "By Thinking About It"
Statement: In a 2022 interview, Trump stated, "You can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it."
Reality: Declassification procedures require formal steps and documentation. Mental intent alone does not meet legal standards for declassification.
Explanation: A US President not understanding the declassification processes can have serious national security implications.