| JWeinCom said: You don't get it, do you ? You don't argue the absolute if you don't have any evidence to back that claim up, what you get is an asspull on your part ... No we don't need the literal meaning of everything and you're right about that but it becomes a problem when you invent things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie. I assure you that I'm not playing these petty word games but you on the other hand is playing the backtracking game ... Nobody is arguing about absolutes. I'm arguing my opinion. While I feel it is very well supported, I never claimed to be infallible.
Since you need to have evidence to back things up as you just said, can you show the evidence that I'm backtracking? Or inventing things with gaps in knowledge? Please provide direct quotes or the like.
I am not that interested in defending Donald Drumpf, what I'm interested in is preserving the TRUTH, big difference there ...
And you've done neither. You've addressed next to nothing I or anyone else has said about Drumpf.
I'm not interested in aruging against your opinion of Donald Drumpf and if changing goalposts isn't making up two lies on the fly to suit your argument then I don't know what is ...
 I literally have no idea what this means. Changing goalposts is making up two lies? What lies? What goalposts? You said you needed to back things up with evidence, so please do so. I can't address anything if you don't give specifics.
I don't even want or need prove that Drumpf is a worthwhile candidate since that's ALL BASED ON OPINIONS! The one university level math course that I attended to hit home the point VERY STRONGLY is that YOU CANNOT MAKE PROOFS BASED OFF OF OPINIONS. I'm just here to bust all the myths regarding Drumpf and me poking at your logic with a stick is just on the side ...
Opinions may not be able to be proven (some can and some can't), but we have to choose between opinions all the time. For example, if you and your girlfriend or boyfriend are choosing a location for a vacation, it's an opinion based question. There is no definitively right or wrong answer as to which vacation will be better. That doesn't mean you can't evaluate the two locations and what they offer to decide which one is more likely to be enjoyable. Just like we can try to decide which candidate will more likely make a better president.
As for busting myths, the only "myth" you addressed, was the myth that we can't ban immigration based on religion, which is something nobody brought up buy you.
As for poking at my logic, repeatedly attacking me doesn't count. |
It's a lost cause to even try responding but I'll bite your bait ...
"I was talking about him saying we should consider a registry for muslims in the US." "And that is a straight up violation of the 14th amendment which does not apply to Chinese people in China, but does apply to Muslim people in the US."
I proved otherwise and the US Supreme Court seems to disagree with you that you can't profile groups based on these factors but lo and behold this comes from you, "And no, that doesn't make Trump right because even if you can it may not be a good idea." so all of a sudden what I proved as a possibility means that I also have to disprove your opinion too ? Well what am I supposed to expect when desperate times calls for desperate measures ... *shrugs*
"Arguing that we deport US born citizens in defiance of the 14th amendment is objectively bad presidenting" to which he said absolutely none of that even when questioning about anchor babies and even if you meant that "he will strip of birthright citizenship" from anchor babies he also didn't claim that either in the interview with Bill O Reilly but here's where your jump in logic gets you into big trouble with your claim of "Donald Trump will deport anchor babies" when his last statement, "I'd much rather find out whether or not 'anchor babies' are actually citizens, because a lot of people don't think they are." in that piece makes it clear with that he has uncertainty of his own assertion ...
To put this into discrete logic, A implies B or that A does not imply B and that B implies C does not ALWAYS MEAN that A implies C therefore you can't ever be sure that your claim of Donald Trump is true since his compound statement DOES NOT ALWAYS RETURN TRUE in your case ... (i.e. it's NOT A TAUTOLOGY!)
So your statement that "Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US" is both false in the literal sense AND in the logical sense but what's more is that he NEVER affirmed that "he will strip anchor babies of their citizenship". Both very dumb and stupid statements that you made up and I clearly pointed out to be lies ...
*Still waiting for you to admit that you've lied*
