Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
you are the one who used the word "caused". keep torching those strawmans.
You are not forced to do any such thing. It would be wise for you to assume I think he did not do poorly, but anything else would be you just making crap up.
Color me unsurprised that you have chosen "making crap up" and then claimed to have been forced into it.
It's called a strawman.
If you say someone is delusional for thinking he did a poor job, it implies that you think he did a good job. If you thought he did a so-so job, why would you claim others are delusional?
I sure was because I was the one making the argument.
My claim was literally "people think he did poorly because dumb people think he caused the accidents." I didn't attribute that argument to someone else. It was mine.
It's not a strawman if you are the one making the argument. It's a strawman if you are attacking a fake argument someone else made. Hope that helped.
If you say someone is delusional for thinking he did a poor job, it implies that you think he did a good job.
No. You incorrectly inferred that.
I don't think he did a "so-so job." I think he did an adequate to above average job. I also think the idea that he somehow did a poor job is delusional. How exactly are you confused about this?
Back to spread more misinformation, scrub?
Ironic for you to say that since his argument is demonstrably logically flawed. It's quite simple to demonstrate that logical flaw. It's called a false dichotomy. Do you need me to hold your hand while I explain what that is?
Imagine my gentle hand holding on to yours to ease the pain of public embarrassment once again, as I explain in soothing tones:
A false dichotomy is a presentation of two options when there are more than two options. Here, zers has presented only two options: 1) he did a poor job, 2) he did a good job. In reality, the quality of the job he did is much more complex than that. For one, it could be described using a spectrum from extremely poor to amazing. It could also be multi-faceted: good in some areas, fair in others, excellent in still other areas, etc. Thus, stating that since I believe it wasn't one option I'm implying it is "the other" is logically flawed because there is not a single "other" option.
Now, go play.
I sure was because I was the one making the argument.
My claim was literally "people think he did poorly because dumb people think he caused the accidents." I didn't attribute that argument to someone else. It was mine.
It's not a strawman if you are the one making the argument. It's a strawman if you are attacking a fake argument someone else made. Hope that helped.
I said he was in charge during the catastrophes. you changed the meaning to argue against him "causing it".
you should work on your honesty.
I said he was in charge during the catastrophes. you changed the meaning to argue against him "causing it".
Could you show me what I said that you mistakenly interpreted as where I "changed the meaning to argue against him causing it?"
My honesty is fine. You should work on your reading comprehension.
He didn't say I think he did a good job, though, did he? I mean, if you lie about his claim, then of course you can say he was right the whole time.
I'm just trying to help. We know Mayor Pete did a great job as transportation secretary because he's Mayor Pete...but how can we prove it?
Let me know when it sinks in that you've been wrong this whole time. Or are you going to argue that "adequate to above average" is equivalent to "great?"
No, he said he was "forced [by his own logic] to assume that [you] think he did a good or perhaps an excellent job."
Which is demonstrably false, and a revision of history. If he was forced to to assume that, why did he chose "great" instead of the other options to pin on me? See the issue? If not, I'll patiently explain it. Again.
I stated it was delusional to think he did a poor job. Luckbox attempted to use a false dichotomy to create a strawman argument to argue against rather than demonstrate the poor job he did (which would've been the correct way to argue for the point), because he knew he could not demonstrate that he did a poor job. He implied that I said he did a great job when I clearly made no such statement nor could one be inferred from what I said (as I have clearly shown). That is the very definition of a strawman argument. I am under no obligation to defend a claim I didn't make.
You've spent multiple posts trying to defend his logically flawed argument rather than hold his feet to the fire to argue for his claim directly, which shows your bias quite clearly (or you lack of understanding of the situation).
So, where we stand: Luckbox made an implied claim (or, more accurately attempted to defend a stated claim) that PB did a poor job as transportation secretary, and has not supported it with anything other than a strawman argument. Since his argument was not against any claim I made, I am under no obligation to defend it. That's it.
For the record, I did state he did an adequate to above average job, and I am somewhat prepared to defend that claim, though I won't be going into too much detail about it since it's just my opinion and I don't really care if someone agrees with me. I do, however, believe that an accusation of a "poor job" would require at least some justification - precisely zero of which has been supplied by anyone in this thread. Providing that justification would be much more credible and should be fairly simple to do; yet, it has not been provided. Resorting to rhetorical tricks like strawmen and false dichotomies to disprove something else rather than supporting the "poor job" claim is pretty indicative of how flimsy the claim was in the first place.
And that's the whole point.
How Trump could bring on a second civil war
I have no opinions of Buttigieg's job as transportation secretary. I haven't had to replace a wheel due to a pothole since Obama II and most of my flights were on time so he probably did fine. A few train derailments big deal.
All the rest of everything Gorgo is saying about what I claimed and what I've said I'll just let go as it's all nonsense.
I think reflecting on exactly why you are trying to argue that I should respond to him claiming I said he did a "GREAT JORB" would be a great idea, because it should be pretty clear that what are you doing isn't useful to the conversation and doesn't in any way support the claim that PB did a "poor job."
And if you aren't trying to support that claim, you're literally just masturbating in here.
I have no opinions of Buttigieg's job as transportation secretary. I haven't had to replace a wheel due to a pothole since Obama II and most of my flights were on time so he probably did fine. A few train derailments big deal.
All the rest of everything Gorgo is saying about what I claimed and what I've said I'll just let go as it's all nonsense.
Maybe next time don't imply I said he did a great job when I didn't say anything of the sort? It was obvious why you did that even if you deny it. I do realize that people are so used to using poor logic and rhetorical tricks to try to score argument points that they don't realize why they are logically flawed, so I can't exactly blame you for not knowing, but I will still call you out on it.
I dont think he did a very good job tbh. he did about the same as a Trump appointment. if Dems will do the same thing as a Republican then I am still confused as to why I should bother voting for them.
Maybe next time don't imply I said he did a great job when I didn't say anything of the sort? It was obvious why you did that even if you deny it. I do realize that people are so used to using poor logic and rhetorical tricks to try to score argument points that they don't realize why they are logically flawed, so I can't exactly blame you for not knowing, but I will still call you out on it.
Ok I give up just admit you love Mayor Pete.
I dont think he did a very good job tbh. he did about the same as a Trump appointment. if Dems will do the same thing as a Republican then I am still confused as to why I should bother voting for them.
Are you able to go a day without a post equating republicans and democrats or falsely claiming genocide? Nobody, not even you, is trying to clear up your confusion about voting.
