The rise of American authoritarianism

[viper37]

The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.

Trump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

your own words.

[grumbler]

Yes, and Bush immediatly shut down the detention camp, right?

Nope.  He kept the POW camp open just as every country has kept POW camps open in wartime. 

I guess it is possible that you oppose keeping POWs in detention camps.  Is that really your position?   If so,      If not, then how does your position differ from the US government's position (Trump or not)? 

[grumbler]

The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.

Trump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

your own words.

Yes, my words prove that you are a liar.  Care to retract, or are you going to double down on your stupid?

[viper37]

The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.

Trump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

your own words.

Yes, my words prove that you are a liar.  Care to retract, or are you going to double down on your stupid?

Since I'm not lying, why would I retract?
"but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government"
that means kinda harmless to me.  Especially since you say he can't be "willfully bad".  That's a silly argument.  Not many politicians in the world aim to do bad things for the pleasure of doing bad things.  Most of them believe they are doing great things for their country and themselves along the way.  I'm not sure Stalin and Hitler saw themselves as the embodiement of Evil(tm).  This isn't exactly a Disney cartoon, you know.

[Berkut]

Uggh. He stated explicitly:

"Trump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness"

How you can move from that to

"The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless."

is kind of stunning.

grumbler started with a statement that Trump could do damage. He then stated that the damage he could do is limited by the system. So his starting point is "Trump can do damage".

It is simply not possible to go from that starting point to "grumbler believes Trump is harmless". He is stating outright that the is NOT harmless!

[LaCroix]

the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

[Berkut]

the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

[PJL]

the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I blame politicians (and the media).

[LaCroix]

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

assuming that's true, I don't know if that's the case here

[grumbler]

the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

It isn't his "harmless,"  though.  He is dishonestly trying to attribute it to me.  He's now weaseling to "kinda harmless" since the bald-faced lie isn't going to fly.  So I'll meet him half-way and note that it is "kinda" stupid to expect to get away with the bald-faced lie.

He has successfully turned attention away from his absurd Nine Impossible Things Trump Will Do Before Breakfast list, so maybe he thinks lying is worth it.

[grumbler]

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

He's not "intentionally refusing to understand" my argument, he is lying about it.  It isn't possible for even him to "misunderstand"
"Trump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness"
into
"Trump is harmless."

It IS true that VIPER said that "it's all ok then, you can all vote for Trump, he can't do anything bad, so there's no fear."  Maybe he is arguing against THAT position and just got it confused from mine - and it certainly is a dumb enough statement that even viper knows it is dumb.

[LaCroix]

It isn't his "harmless,"  though.  He is dishonestly trying to attribute it to me.  He's now weaseling to "kinda harmless" since the bald-faced lie isn't going to fly.  So I'll meet him half-way and note that it is "kinda" stupid to expect to get away with the bald-faced lie.

He has successfully turned attention away from his absurd Nine Impossible Things Trump Will Do Before Breakfast list, so maybe he thinks lying is worth it.

well, let's remember how this tangent started. he was saying more silly things, and one thing was a non-literal "grumbler thinks Trump is harmless!" you focused on that bit and naturally ignored the nonsense, because there'd been so much of it already. you're correct that you didn't say trump was harmless, and viper is also correct that he didn't lie -- he probably never meant literal harmless. some people toss around words with less precision than others, which leads to misunderstandings when one side takes the actual definition of the word

[dps]

It's not like the Congress ever opposed GW Bush for anything he attempted

Say what?

[DGuller]

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

[grumbler]

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

  This is untrue, for what it is worth.  There have been genuinely unpleasant shitstorms that didn't even involve you.  They are somewhat rare, true, but it is an exaggeration to say that it is "almost invariable" that you are involved.