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.
Because it can't be cleared up.
Biden Is Asked To DEPORT Elon Musk, REVOKE His Citizenship
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?
Obviously if you have no ability to determine how good or bad is doing but somehow delude yourself into thinking he’s doing poorly you’re delusional.
Obviously if you have no ability to determine how good or bad is doing but somehow delude yourself into thinking he’s doing poorly you’re delusional.
But Luckbox didn't show that he lacked the ability to determine how good or bad Mayor Pete did, nor did he make the argument that Mayor Pete did poorly; only laughed at the idea of having an opinion on the matter, insinuating that the position is nonsense. And when he asked the poster who called Pete's critics delusional why they felt that way, that person was unable to provide an answer and basically told him to look it up.
Wrong? Maybe. But not delusional.
And when he asked the poster who called Pete's critics delusional why they felt that way, that person was unable to provide an answer and basically told him to look it up.
Why are you lying? Luckbox never asked me why I felt the other guy was delusional, nor did I tell him to look that answer up.
Luckbox tried to get me to support a claim I didn't make, and I told him if he was interested in making a claim and supporting it, that was his job, not mine.
Again, reading comprehension seems difficult for some.
But Luckbox didn't show that he lacked the ability to determine how good or bad Mayor Pete did, nor did he make the argument that Mayor Pete did poorly; only laughed at the idea of having an opinion on the matter, insinuating that the position is nonsense. And when he asked the poster who called Pete's critics delusional why they felt that way, that person was unable to provide an answer and basically told him to look it up.
That's a fictional retelling of what happened. Trying reading it again. And I'm just explaining to you why your claim is wrong. If someone sits in on a graduate level math talk and says the speaker did a terrible job and then you realize the person making the claim doesn't know junior high stuff they are delusional for thinking they know enough to make that determination. That does not imply the speaker did a great job.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress worried that Gabbard might leak to Assad regime:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nationa...
I guess they don't have to worry about this anymore?
That's a fictional retelling of what happened. Trying reading it again. And I'm just explaining to you why your claim is wrong. If someone sits in on a graduate level math talk and says the speaker did a terrible job and then you realize the person making the claim doesn't know junior high stuff they are delusional for thinking they know enough to make that determination. That does not imply the speaker did a great job.
I went through the thread again and understand what you're saying. I don't disagree. From what I saw, the convo pretty much started with this comment by lozen (If someone can point me to the "phase of deflection," that might help, because I didn't see it):
I’d like to look at some of Biden’s picks and you have to say Merrick Garland was incompetent as was Mayor Pete .
I particularly enjoyed the "I have no idea what his name was but I still know enough to judge his job performance" phase of that deflection. Well that and the delusional idea that Pete Buttigieg did poorly in his role.
I may have misinterpreted Gorgo's comment. The second sentence in the post above can refer to an individual (in which case, it might be true) or to anyone who thinks Pete did poorly (almost certainly not true). That wasn't clear to me when I read it, so point taken.
Luckbox interpreted it the same way and inferred that if Gorgo thinks people who believe Pete did poorly are delusional, then he must think Pete did a pretty good job, which is a reasonable conclusion.
The conversaion was kind of all over the place, and there was a lot of misunderstanding. Luckbox basically asked Gorgo to make a case for why Pete did an adequate to above average job, to use Gorgo's words, but Gorgo never made a case for why he believes that, and that's why things went off the rails, so to speak.
I may not have been clear.
And when he (Luckbox) asked the poster (Gorgo) who called Pete's critics delusional why they felt that way, that person was unable to provide an answer and basically told him to look it up.
Why are you lying? Luckbox never asked me why I felt the other guy was delusional, nor did I tell him to look that answer up.
Luckbox tried to get me to support a claim I didn't make, and I told him if he was interested in making a claim and supporting it, that was his job, not mine.
Again, reading comprehension seems difficult for some.
I was referring to this section:
Luckbox: What are the positive things about his tenure that we can talk about instead?
Gorgo: Do you honestly believe I want to talk to you about this?
Luckbox: 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?
Gorgo: Trying to help me do what task? If you'd like to prove something, I suggest the internet to help you out.
Luckbox basically asked Gorgo to make a case for why Pete did an adequate to above average job, to use Gorgo's words, but Gorgo never made a case for why he believes that, and that's why things went off the rails, so to speak.
Why do you say Luckbox asked me something that he did not ask me, REPEATEDLY? Luckbox DID NOT ASK ME to make a case for why Pete did an adequate to above average job. Read this next part carefully: HAD HE ASKED ME THAT, I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED.
He asked me to make a case for why he did a GREAT job.
How do you STILL not see the difference?
Yes, you were clear. You are still pretending he asked me something that he did not ask. Since he asked me to prove something I didn't say, I told him where he could go for help with his case. It's incredible that you have to be going on over a dozen posts now lying to excuse his strawman argument rather than suggesting someone defend their own claim of "poor job." Ask yourself why you are doing that.
Why do you say Luckbox asked me something that he did not ask me, REPEATEDLY? Luckbox DID NOT ASK ME to make a case for why Pete did an adequate to above average job. Read this next part carefully: HAD HE ASKED ME THAT, I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED.
He asked me to make a case for why he did a GREAT job.
How do you STILL not see the difference?
Think about it from his point of view. He thinks you said anyone who believes Pete did poorly is delusional. If that was the case, it would have suggested that you thought Pete did a really good job, as you would have thought it was so obvious that anyone who thought Pete did poorly was delusional. Like I said, misunderstandings abound, like a Three's Company episode.
Think about it from his point of view. He thinks you said anyone who believes Pete did poorly is delusional. If that was the case, it would have suggested that you thought Pete did a really good job, as you would have thought it was so obvious that anyone who thought Pete did poorly was delusional. Like I said, misunderstandings abound, like a Three's Company episode.
Think about it from a reality perspective. He created a strawman to deflect the burden of proof away from the person that made the "Pete did a poor job" claim onto me. You have now spent over a dozen posts defending this, rather than simply saying, yeah the guy that made the original claim that he did a poor job is the one that should support the claim.
This is sad to watch. But you keep digging. You are still insisting I should answer for a claim I didn't make rather than insisting that the person that made the original claim defend theirs. And you still haven't asked yourself why that is.
I went through the thread again and understand what you're saying. I don't disagree. From what I saw, the convo pretty much started with this comment by lozen (If someone can point me to the "phase of deflection," that might help, because I didn't see it):
I may have misinterpreted Gorgo's comment. The second sentence in the post above can refer to an individual (in which case, it might be true) or to anyone who thinks Pete did poorly (almost certainly not true). That wasn't clear to me when I re
I definitely thinks it’s safe to say someone at Lozens level has 0 ability to determine how a transportation sec did. He’s delusional if he thinks he does. The graduate level math analogy works perfectly. Hell drop it down to high school remedial algebra and it still would work.
No one is lying or arguing in bad faith. It's easy to misunderstand someone, and things are easily lost in communication on message boards.
Would you like me to go through and highlight your lies again? I'd be happy to.
Take the W. I misconstrued some of the comments and wasn't trying to misrepresent you.
LIE #1: Saying "to use Gorgo's words" is just your excuse for lying. It's still a lie. Luckbox did NOT basically ask me that. He asked why he did a "great" job. You know this, as it's been pointed out many, many times. Your change here is intentional, and thus a lie.
Luckbox basically asked Gorgo to make a case for why Pete did an adequate to above average job, to use Gorgo's words, but Gorgo never made a case for why he believes that, and that's why things went off the rails, so to speak.
LIE #2: I was not asked why I felt that way, I was asked to provide support for why he did a great job. I am not unable to provide an answer, I just was not asked for one. And I didn't tell him to look that up, I told him to use the internet to support the claim HE made.
And when he asked the poster who called Pete's critics delusional why they felt that way, that person was unable to provide an answer and basically told him to look it up.
LIE #3
That you think he did a good job. I know, I know. "Above average" and "good" aren't the same, and "so-so" is different from "adequate."
You lied that I said he did a good job, then sarcastically used that lie as a strawman, which you bravely defeated.
SHALL I GO ON?
He gave up too prematurely but you are exasperating so I can understand.
LIE #1: Saying "to use Gorgo's words" is just your excuse for lying. It's still a lie. Luckbox did NOT basically ask me that. He asked why he did a "great" job. You know this, as it's been pointed out many, many times. Your change here is intentional, and thus a lie.
I added that sentence for context. It clearly states what you believe, but it also points out that Luckbox was basically asking you to make a pro-Pete case, contingent on how he interpreted your previous comments. I think you're taking the "great" comment a bit too literally.
LIE #2: I was not asked why I felt that way, I was asked to provide support for why he did a great job. I am not unable to provide an answer, I just was not asked for one. And I didn't tell him to look that up, I told him to use the internet to support the claim HE made.
Yeah, I see that. It's just another misunderstanding, not a lie. Luckbox, however, did not argue that Pete did good or bad job. He was asking you to support a position that he mistakenly inferred you held, and he was asking for an answer. Communication breakdown.
You lied that I said he did a good job, then sarcastically used that lie as a strawman, which you bravely defeated.
I'm gonna leave this one alone. Anyway, no hard feelings.
