|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 7, 2024 22:35:14 GMT
Just get over it mate, you’re embarrassing yourself To be honest I meant all of what I said in jest earlier.......but this Trump stuff is seriously going on a bit now. The US electorate were faced with Trump who Republicans backed and his policies (which you can either agree or disagree with) and Harris who was imposed on Democrats and had no policies but just stood on an "I'm Not Trump" platform. Faced with that choice, is it any wonder that Trump won? That maybe but it doesn't make Trump any less of a complete and utter scumbag, which I guess is what is actually now important moving forwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 7, 2024 22:44:22 GMT
He's an out and out racist, although I'm sure he'd deny it ... That's 1 person out of 72,756,919 votes. Nothing like another sweeping generalisation of white men. As always it's the same as calling all Muslims terrorists but the blinkers don't allow you to see it. If you want to frame it in those terms, then that's your prerogative but personally, I don't see any evidence to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The point that he is making, is that he doesn't believe, that the rhetoric used by the gentleman in the video, IS unique to him and is actually shared by a significant proportion of the Trump vote, even though they would swear blind themselves, that they don't believe they are racists. Trump is a racist himself, it's not a giant stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 7, 2024 23:09:44 GMT
That's 1 person out of 72,756,919 votes. Nothing like another sweeping generalisation of white men. As always it's the same as calling all Muslims terrorists but the blinkers don't allow you to see it. If you want to frame it in those terms, then that's your prerogative but personally, I don't see any evidence to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The point that he is making, is that he doesn't believe, that the rhetoric used by the gentleman in the video, is unique to him and is actually shared by a significant proportion of the Trump vote, even though they would swear blind themselves, that they don't believe they are racists. Trump is a racist himself, it's not a giant stretch. Although I think everything the guys says is bollocks, I actually prefer this honesty than the people who pretend they have to vote for Trump because they are being held back by a mythical bunch of transgender people who control the world and all identify as cats. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 7, 2024 23:27:09 GMT
If you want to frame it in those terms, then that's your prerogative but personally, I don't see any evidence to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The point that he is making, is that he doesn't believe, that the rhetoric used by the gentleman in the video, is unique to him and is actually shared by a significant proportion of the Trump vote, even though they would swear blind themselves, that they don't believe they are racists. Trump is a racist himself, it's not a giant stretch. Although I think everything the guys says is bollocks, I actually prefer this honesty than the people who pretend they have to vote for Trump because they are being held back by a mythical bunch of transgender people who control the world and all identify as cats. Quite ... 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 7, 2024 23:32:08 GMT
Eehhh ...
Doesn't it all come down to where you put the starting point on the timeline?
If the older guy in that video really wanted that piece on Earth to belong to who was there first, well he should get out as fast as he could and give it to the Indians.
And that's why I don't for a second believe people who claim "we were here first" as an argument anywhere, any place, on this Earth.
It all depends on how you draw the timeline; where do you count from?
And more importantly, why? Why did you pick a specific starting point?
So I don't think he's honest at all. Or maybe just lacking of knowledge. It would be more honest to say, I want it to be like it was a hundred years ago - or whatever - since that's what he really means.
|
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Nov 8, 2024 0:08:51 GMT
That's 1 person out of 72,756,919 votes. Nothing like another sweeping generalisation of white men. As always it's the same as calling all Muslims terrorists but the blinkers don't allow you to see it. If you want to frame it in those terms, then that's your prerogative but personally, I don't see any evidence to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The point that he is making, is that he doesn't believe, that the rhetoric used by the gentleman in the video, IS unique to him and is actually shared by a significant proportion of the Trump vote, even though they would swear blind themselves, that they don't believe they are racists. Trump is a racist himself, it's not a giant stretch. Calling 72 million people racist isn't a giant stretch? Let's leave it there. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 8, 2024 0:28:13 GMT
If you want to frame it in those terms, then that's your prerogative but personally, I don't see any evidence to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The point that he is making, is that he doesn't believe, that the rhetoric used by the gentleman in the video, IS unique to him and is actually shared by a significant proportion of the Trump vote, even though they would swear blind themselves, that they don't believe they are racists. Trump is a racist himself, it's not a giant stretch. Calling 72 million people racist isn't a giant stretch? Let's leave it there. And nobody has done that. But hey, you carry on ... |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 1:46:05 GMT
People can have faith in Trump not to start military conflicts, as there is no evidence that he has. People cannot have faith that Trump can end military conflicts, as that is rather misguided. Which is exactly what I said. No it isn’t. You said: There is a difference between faith and blind faith. He has form for not war mongering. You can have faith he carries on in the same vein. I really do think there is very little difference between faith and blind faith when it comes to evidence of Trump being capable, or even interested in bringing wars to a successful conclusion.If you’re going to play semantics then you have to get the semantics right. First, there is a considerable conceptual difference between faith and blind faith. Second, Trump demonstrably tried to end the Afghanistan conflict. So, there is evidence that Trump is interested in bringing wars to a conclusion. Therefore, people can have faith that he wants to. Third, whilst people can't have faith that Trump can end conflicts, they clearly can have blind faith that he can. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 8, 2024 2:54:36 GMT
Which is exactly what I said. No it isn’t. You said: I really do think there is very little difference between faith and blind faith when it comes to evidence of Trump being capable, or even interested in bringing wars to a successful conclusion.If you’re going to play semantics then you have to get the semantics right. First, there is a considerable conceptual difference between faith and blind faith. Second, Trump demonstrably tried to end the Afghanistan conflict. So, there is evidence that Trump is interested in bringing wars to a conclusion. Therefore, people can have faith that he wants to. Third, whilst people can’t have faith that Trump can end conflicts, they clearly can have blindly faith that he can. Yes it is, salop was using the fact that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them, which is a conflation of two different things and ultimately, as a result, becomes an example of blind faith, which is exactly the point you later went on to make yourself. And language is indeed extremely important, that's why you shouldn't have ignored the word 'successful' in my post, it is vital to the point I was making. Having the desire to end a war by surrendering, is massively different to having the desire to negotiate a successful conclusion to one and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Trump has the capability or indeed even the desire, to do that. One of the most heartbreaking interviews I watched on election night, was that of a Ukranian MP, fighting back the tears, as the realisation set in, of what was now the very likely outcome for her country. Trump is a hugely indebted individual and as a result, he is an extremely compromised individual, who now has some rather large bills to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 8, 2024 7:08:58 GMT
Always thought America was inhabited by morons they have just proven me right
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 8:15:06 GMT
No it isn’t. You said: If you’re going to play semantics then you have to get the semantics right. First, there is a considerable conceptual difference between faith and blind faith. Second, Trump demonstrably tried to end the Afghanistan conflict. So, there is evidence that Trump is interested in bringing wars to a conclusion. Therefore, people can have faith that he wants to. Third, whilst people can’t have faith that Trump can end conflicts, they clearly can have blindly faith that he can. Yes it is, salop was using the fact that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them, which is a conflation of two different things and ultimately, as a result, becomes an example of blind faith, which is exactly the point you later went on to make yourself. And language is indeed extremely important, that's why you shouldn't have ignored the word 'successful' in my post, it is vital to the point I was making. Having the desire to end a war by surrendering, is massively different to having the desire to negotiate a successful conclusion to one and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Trump has the capability or indeed even the desire, to do that. One of the most heartbreaking interviews I watched on election night, was that of a Ukranian MP, fighting back the tears, as the realisation set in, of what was now the very likely outcome for her country. Trump is a hugely indebted individual and as a result, he is an extremely compromised individual, who now has some rather large bills to pay. very likely outcome of her country? cry me a river sensationalism Absolutley no way USA cuts funding for one there is still billions available from previous congress The outgoing, Republican-controlled House of Representatives last approved aid for Ukraine in April including the authority for Joe Biden to transfer billions of dollars in weapons from US stocks. Of the weapons transfer authority passed in April, $4.3bn remains, in addition to $2.8bn worth of transfers lawmakers approved in previous spending measures and $2bn in funding for the purchase of new weapons from industry. In total, that $9bn in military assistance would be a significant boost to Ukraine’s stores. That leaves Trump plenty of time to speak with Putin and try and negotiate some sort of withdrawal indeed on this very forum its been discussed how russia are not winning and its all about how putin can leave with out losing face, that will be trumps job now, and putting any alleged russian links aside he has a cordial relationship with putin and MAY be able to change us foreign policy just enough that putin can go on tv and declare "aim" complete - one of those things is not having ukraine in nato. its already proven that nato will support ukraine so it does not really need to be a member. Crimea is a different proposition as both sides and indeed the people have polarising historical claims - take the following with a pinch of salt Polling in 2008 by the Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies, also called the Razumkov Centre, found that a majority of Crimeans simultaneously approved the idea of joining Russia (63.8%), while also supporting the idea of remaining within Ukraine if Crimea was given greater autonomy (53.8%). also he results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 21–29, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.[132] Gallup conducted an immediate post-referendum survey of Ukraine and Crimea and published their results in April 2014. Gallup reported that, among the population of Crimea, 93.6% of ethnic Russians and 68.4% of ethnic Ukrainians believed the referendum result accurately represents the will of the Crimean people. Only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people.[133] According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 21–27, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views,[134] and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.[134] |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 8:18:08 GMT
No it isn’t. You said: If you’re going to play semantics then you have to get the semantics right. First, there is a considerable conceptual difference between faith and blind faith. Second, Trump demonstrably tried to end the Afghanistan conflict. So, there is evidence that Trump is interested in bringing wars to a conclusion. Therefore, people can have faith that he wants to. Third, whilst people can’t have faith that Trump can end conflicts, they clearly can have blindly faith that he can. Yes it is, salop was using the fact that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them, which is a conflation of two different things and ultimately, as a result, becomes an example of blind faith, which is exactly the point you later went on to make yourself. And language is indeed extremely important, that's why you shouldn't have ignored the word 'successful' in my post, it is vital to the point I was making. Having the desire to end a war by surrendering, is massively different to having the desire to negotiate a successful conclusion to one and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Trump has the capability or indeed even the desire, to do that. One of the most heartbreaking interviews I watched on election night, was that of a Ukranian MP, fighting back the tears, as the realisation set in, of what was now the very likely outcome for her country. Trump is a hugely indebted individual and as a result, he is an extremely compromised individual, who now has some rather large bills to pay. We can all see what salopstick was saying. salopstick was not using the idea that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them. salopstick was correctly differentiating between the concepts of faith and blind faith. Salop said: "It’s not blind faith as (Trump) does not have form for conflict. You have to have faith (Trump) will strive for peace in Europe and the Middle East"
and "There is a difference between faith and blind faith. (Trump) has form for not war mongering. You can have faith (Trump) carries on in the same vein."Salop said there he has faith that Trump wants to end wars as there is evidence that he strives for peace. There is tangible evidence that Trump does have the desire to negotiate a conclusion to wars. Firstly, he did it with Afghanistan. Secondly, he's openly said he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, Salop can have faith Trump will continue to want to end wars. Salop secondly said there is evidence that Trump has no form for starting wars. There is tangible evidence that Trump does not want to start wars. Firstly, during his first presidential term and his latest presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasised his desire to end conflicts and avoid new wars. Trump has also openly expressed a preference for negotiating and making deals rather than engaging in military conflicts. Trump's stance has been to avoid prolonged military engagements. So, Salop can have faith that Trump will continue in that vein. Both of Salop's statements are truisms. Ultimately, your initial argument was that it's possible for there to be very little difference between faith and blind faith. You are now arguing that the concept of faith can develop into a new concept of blind faith - which is not what your initial view was nor what you initially said to Salop as we can see. It's a very moot point, but your use of the word successful is not vital to the point you were trying to make at all, primarily because s uccessful is subjective and you never defined what your version of successful is ... until now. Either way, Trump will be spending the next two months pedalling back slightly from his harsher electoral rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 8:20:47 GMT
Yes it is, salop was using the fact that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them, which is a conflation of two different things and ultimately, as a result, becomes an example of blind faith, which is exactly the point you later went on to make yourself. And language is indeed extremely important, that's why you shouldn't have ignored the word 'successful' in my post, it is vital to the point I was making. Having the desire to end a war by surrendering, is massively different to having the desire to negotiate a successful conclusion to one and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Trump has the capability or indeed even the desire, to do that. One of the most heartbreaking interviews I watched on election night, was that of a Ukranian MP, fighting back the tears, as the realisation set in, of what was now the very likely outcome for her country. Trump is a hugely indebted individual and as a result, he is an extremely compromised individual, who now has some rather large bills to pay. We can all see what salopstick was saying. salopstick was not using the idea that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them. salopstick was correctly differentiating between the concepts of faith and blind faith. Salop said: "It’s not blind faith as (Trump) does not have form for conflict. You have to have faith (Trump) will strive for peace in Europe and the Middle East"
and "There is a difference between faith and blind faith. (Trump) has form for not war mongering. You can have faith (Trump) carries on in the same vein."Salop said there he has faith that Trump wants to end wars as there is evidence that he strives for peace. There is tangible evidence that Trump does have the desire to negotiate a conclusion to wars. Firstly, he did it with Afghanistan. Secondly, he's openly said he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, Salop can have faith Trump will continue to want to end wars. Salop secondly said there is evidence that Trump has no form for starting wars. There is tangible evidence that Trump does not want to start wars. Firstly, during his first presidential term and his latest presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasised his desire to end conflicts and avoid new wars. Trump has also openly expressed a preference for negotiating and making deals rather than engaging in military conflicts. Trump's stance has been to avoid prolonged military engagements. So, Salop can have faith that Trump will continue in that vein. Both of Salop's statements are truisms. Ultimately, your initial argument was that it's possible for there to be very little difference between faith and blind faith. You are now arguing that the concept of faith can develop into a new concept of blind faith - which is not what your initial view was nor what you initially said to Salop as we can see. It's a very moot point, but your use of the word successful is not vital to the point you were trying to make at all, primarily because s uccessful is subjective and you never defined what your version of successful is ... until now. Either way, Trump will be spending the next two months pedalling back slightly from his harsher electoral rhetoric. of course Trump is going to back pedal on some of his pre-election rhetoric, he did not know about the £22bn black hole  nor did he think Lammy would end up as Foreign Secretary |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 8, 2024 8:21:37 GMT
Always thought America was inhabited by morons they have just proven me right Xenophobe |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 8, 2024 8:38:18 GMT
There's been some very perceptive analysis over the last few hours but this is actually quite brilliant ... He's talking utter shit. These folk will never get it. He's into his gender and race tropes, and personality tropes, because that's all the arguments and explanation these folk have. That's all they can revert to. Same on here. And that's why they will continue to lose. Galloway does a better of understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 8:48:23 GMT
There's been some very perceptive analysis over the last few hours but this is actually quite brilliant ... He's talking utter shit. These folk will never get it. He's into his gender and race tropes, and personality tropes, because that's all the arguments and explanation these folk have. That's all they can revert to. Same on here. And that's why they will continue to lose. Galloway does a better of understanding. As much as I disagree with Galloway politically (I think he's an opportunist who takes a rather bizarre impractical political stance on some issues) I loved his line about the American working class of all colours voting for Trump and it's them "what won it." |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 8, 2024 12:02:38 GMT
Remember, when you vote, do you vote for yourself and your family getting it better, the city, the country you live, or other continents, the world ...
On Swedish TV they have been pretty sure USA is the winner since the Election, and most economists here in Sweden have said it doesn't matter who would have won it, it's only different degrees in hell for us up here in Sweden.
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 8, 2024 12:47:40 GMT
He's talking utter shit. These folk will never get it. He's into his gender and race tropes, and personality tropes, because that's all the arguments and explanation these folk have. That's all they can revert to. Same on here. And that's why they will continue to lose. Galloway does a better of understanding. As much as I disagree with Galloway politically (I think he's an opportunist who takes a rather bizarre impractical political stance on some issues) I loved his line about the American working class of all colours voting for Trump and it's them "what won it." Here's his full take. I don't think being a fan is necessary to concede he makes some incisive points. No ad hominem required, either. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 14:01:21 GMT
a little titbit i just stumbled on will ensure the 47th President will be well remembered "The US will celebrate its 250th birthday during the 2026 World Cup, commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and handing the president even more global spotlight." |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 8, 2024 14:18:35 GMT
Yes it is, salop was using the fact that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them, which is a conflation of two different things and ultimately, as a result, becomes an example of blind faith, which is exactly the point you later went on to make yourself. And language is indeed extremely important, that's why you shouldn't have ignored the word 'successful' in my post, it is vital to the point I was making. Having the desire to end a war by surrendering, is massively different to having the desire to negotiate a successful conclusion to one and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Trump has the capability or indeed even the desire, to do that. One of the most heartbreaking interviews I watched on election night, was that of a Ukranian MP, fighting back the tears, as the realisation set in, of what was now the very likely outcome for her country. Trump is a hugely indebted individual and as a result, he is an extremely compromised individual, who now has some rather large bills to pay. We can all see what salopstick was saying. salopstick was not using the idea that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them. salopstick was correctly differentiating between the concepts of faith and blind faith. Salop said: "It’s not blind faith as (Trump) does not have form for conflict. You have to have faith (Trump) will strive for peace in Europe and the Middle East"
and "There is a difference between faith and blind faith. (Trump) has form for not war mongering. You can have faith (Trump) carries on in the same vein."Salop said there he has faith that Trump wants to end wars as there is evidence that he strives for peace. There is tangible evidence that Trump does have the desire to negotiate a conclusion to wars. Firstly, he did it with Afghanistan. Secondly, he's openly said he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, Salop can have faith Trump will continue to want to end wars. Salop secondly said there is evidence that Trump has no form for starting wars. There is tangible evidence that Trump does not want to start wars. Firstly, during his first presidential term and his latest presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasised his desire to end conflicts and avoid new wars. Trump has also openly expressed a preference for negotiating and making deals rather than engaging in military conflicts. Trump's stance has been to avoid prolonged military engagements. So, Salop can have faith that Trump will continue in that vein. Both of Salop's statements are truisms. Ultimately, your initial argument was that it's possible for there to be very little difference between faith and blind faith. You are now arguing that the concept of faith can develop into a new concept of blind faith - which is not what your initial view was nor what you initially said to Salop as we can see. It's a very moot point, but your use of the word successful is not vital to the point you were trying to make at all, primarily because s uccessful is subjective and you never defined what your version of successful is ... until now. Either way, Trump will be spending the next two months pedalling back slightly from his harsher electoral rhetoric. The point that you're not getting, or indeed I'm failing to make, is that I don't accept the examples that both you and salopstick (sorry mate, as you're both making essentially the same point, I'm going to answer you both in this reply to Ariel, I'll try and cover the points you made in your separate post, in this one, if that's ok) have offered by way of examples to illustrate faith. I think they are bogus and are nothing more than examples of blind faith, ergo, in THIS context, not generally, there is very little between what you are descibing as faith and what I am suggesting is actually blind faith. I made it perfectly clear in my post that I was specifically talking about THIS context, please feel free to go back and check. Why do I believe that the examples you (and he) have given, don't warrant a reason to have 'faith'? You've said that there is evidence that Trump strives for peace and then used the examples of Afghanistan and him claiming that he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict as examples of this evidence and that they were both 'truisms'. SURRENDERING to the Taliban is NOT striving for peace, there are 26,000,000 women in Afghanistan who are now nothing much more than slaves. ANYBODY can RUN AWAY from a war but that doesn't then demonstrate that you are a peacemaker. In my opinion, Trump couldn't give two fucks about peace in Afghanistan, rather his PRIMARY concern was, to end the amount of money the US was spending on the war. So no, I don't accept the example of Afghanistan as a reason to have faith that Trump strives for peace, to me, using this example fails spectacularly, leaving you with nothing more than BLIND faith that he can do so. The other example you offered, of him striving for peace, was his claim that he wants to END the Ukraine-Russia war. But what does END actually mean in this context? He has also said ... "America is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine NOT Putin." "Zelensky should never have let the war start." "Ukraine is gone, the Ukrainian people should have surrendered." And just last week, it was reported that Manafort, Trump’s 2nd campaign manager, had met with a Putin ally, with Trump’s implicit approval, to discuss a deal allowing Russia to annex part of Ukraine. There are videos emerging now from Ukraine, of Ukranian soldiers lining up effigies of Trump in mock firing squads, do you think THEY are expecting him to bring 'peace' to the region? So no I don't accept this example is a reason to have 'faith' that Trump strives for peace either. Indeed I don't believe that there are ANY examples available to give us faith that Trump strives for peace, indeed imo, to suggest that he does, is nothing more than an example of blind faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 8, 2024 14:29:11 GMT
As much as I disagree with Galloway politically (I think he's an opportunist who takes a rather bizarre impractical political stance on some issues) I loved his line about the American working class of all colours voting for Trump and it's them "what won it." Here's his full take. I don't think being a fan is necessary to concede he makes some incisive points. No ad hominem required, either. Some good points by our George there and some I don't agree with so much. I'm a fan of George but I'm not quite so optimistic that Trump will follow through on some of these opportunities. The big question is whether he concedes to the biggest foreign lobbyist group in America who put their interests before Americans. I think he will... with the Democrats though.. Its an I know rather than an I think. Here's hoping. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 8, 2024 14:48:14 GMT
We can all see what salopstick was saying. salopstick was not using the idea that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them. salopstick was correctly differentiating between the concepts of faith and blind faith. Salop said: "It’s not blind faith as (Trump) does not have form for conflict. You have to have faith (Trump) will strive for peace in Europe and the Middle East"
and "There is a difference between faith and blind faith. (Trump) has form for not war mongering. You can have faith (Trump) carries on in the same vein."Salop said there he has faith that Trump wants to end wars as there is evidence that he strives for peace. There is tangible evidence that Trump does have the desire to negotiate a conclusion to wars. Firstly, he did it with Afghanistan. Secondly, he's openly said he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, Salop can have faith Trump will continue to want to end wars. Salop secondly said there is evidence that Trump has no form for starting wars. There is tangible evidence that Trump does not want to start wars. Firstly, during his first presidential term and his latest presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasised his desire to end conflicts and avoid new wars. Trump has also openly expressed a preference for negotiating and making deals rather than engaging in military conflicts. Trump's stance has been to avoid prolonged military engagements. So, Salop can have faith that Trump will continue in that vein. Both of Salop's statements are truisms. Ultimately, your initial argument was that it's possible for there to be very little difference between faith and blind faith. You are now arguing that the concept of faith can develop into a new concept of blind faith - which is not what your initial view was nor what you initially said to Salop as we can see. It's a very moot point, but your use of the word successful is not vital to the point you were trying to make at all, primarily because s uccessful is subjective and you never defined what your version of successful is ... until now. Either way, Trump will be spending the next two months pedalling back slightly from his harsher electoral rhetoric. The point that you're not getting, or indeed I'm failing to make, is that I don't accept the examples that both you and salopstick (sorry mate, as you're both making essentially the same point, I'm going to answer you both in this reply to Ariel, I'll try and cover the points you made in your separate post, in this one, if that's ok) have offered by way of examples to illustrate faith. I think they are bogus and are nothing more than examples of blind faith, ergo, in THIS context, not generally, there is very little between what you are descibing as faith and what I am suggesting is actually blind faith. I made it perfectly clear in my post that I was specifically talking about THIS context, please feel free to go back and check. Why do I believe that the examples you (and he) have given, don't warrant a reason to have 'faith'? You've said that there is evidence that Trump strives for peace and then used the examples of Afghanistan and him claiming that he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict as examples of this evidence and that they were both 'truisms'. SURRENDERING to the Taliban is NOT striving for peace, there are 26,000,000 women in Afghanistan who are now nothing much more than slaves. ANYBODY can RUN AWAY from a war but that doesn't then demonstrate that you are a peacemaker. In my opinion, Trump couldn't give two fucks about peace in Afghanistan, rather his PRIMARY concern was, to end the amount of money the US was spending on the war. So no, I don't accept the example of Afghanistan as a reason to have faith that Trump strives for peace, to me, using this example fails spectacularly, leaving you with nothing more than BLIND faith that he can do so. The other example you offered, of him striving for peace, was his claim that he wants to END the Ukraine-Russia war. But what does END actually mean in this context? He has also said ... "America is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine NOT Putin." "Zelensky should never have let the war start." And just last week, it was reported that Manafort, Trump’s 2nd campaign manager, had met with a Putin ally, with Trump’s implicit approval, to discuss a deal allowing Russia to annex part of Ukraine. There are videos emerging now from Ukraine, of Ukranian soldiers lining up effigies of Trump in mock firing squads, do you think THEY are expecting him to bring 'peace' to the region? So no I don't accept this example is a reason to have 'faith' that Trump strives for peace either. Indeed I don't believe that there are ANY examples available to give us faith that Trump strives for peace, indeed imo, to suggest that he does, is nothing more than an example of blind faith. 1. What have the Democrats done to help them over the last 4 years. 2. Funding the Taliban to overthrow the communist Afghan government when women in Afghanistan had the most rights in history doesn't help women either. And who was the government which supported the pro womens rights communist party of Afghanistan in the 70s? Big bad Russia.... But nobody talks about point 2 do they? It's all about women's rights when we are the attacker. What about the women's rights in Saudi Arabia while we send loads of weapons there? What about women's rights in Palestine while Genocide Joe keeps covering 75% of the cost? This presumption USA care about global women's rights is half the problem. They simply weaponize it for their advantage when it suits. It's why we are only ever told about "women's rights" in Iran in the 70s but never Afghanistan. Doesn't suit the propaganda... I have to say Paul that's been one of the best things about our media when it comes to reporting these conflicts. We've both been able to recognise the swathes of misinformation and propaganda which the media try to force upon us when discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict. Hey we even seen it with Iraq too. So it's very refreshing that when it comes to Ukraine everything is completely impartial and factual. I don't know why they didn't just use the same approach for all the other conflicts..... /s Note: I'm not a Trump supporter and personally don't see him as the hero to fix all of this. I'm also incredibly confident that Kamala Harris more so isn't the hero to fix all of this either. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 14:50:42 GMT
We can all see what salopstick was saying. salopstick was not using the idea that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them. salopstick was correctly differentiating between the concepts of faith and blind faith. Salop said: "It’s not blind faith as (Trump) does not have form for conflict. You have to have faith (Trump) will strive for peace in Europe and the Middle East"
and "There is a difference between faith and blind faith. (Trump) has form for not war mongering. You can have faith (Trump) carries on in the same vein."Salop said there he has faith that Trump wants to end wars as there is evidence that he strives for peace. There is tangible evidence that Trump does have the desire to negotiate a conclusion to wars. Firstly, he did it with Afghanistan. Secondly, he's openly said he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, Salop can have faith Trump will continue to want to end wars. Salop secondly said there is evidence that Trump has no form for starting wars. There is tangible evidence that Trump does not want to start wars. Firstly, during his first presidential term and his latest presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasised his desire to end conflicts and avoid new wars. Trump has also openly expressed a preference for negotiating and making deals rather than engaging in military conflicts. Trump's stance has been to avoid prolonged military engagements. So, Salop can have faith that Trump will continue in that vein. Both of Salop's statements are truisms. Ultimately, your initial argument was that it's possible for there to be very little difference between faith and blind faith. You are now arguing that the concept of faith can develop into a new concept of blind faith - which is not what your initial view was nor what you initially said to Salop as we can see. It's a very moot point, but your use of the word successful is not vital to the point you were trying to make at all, primarily because s uccessful is subjective and you never defined what your version of successful is ... until now. Either way, Trump will be spending the next two months pedalling back slightly from his harsher electoral rhetoric. The point that you're not getting, or indeed I'm failing to make, is that I don't accept the examples that both you and salopstick (sorry mate, as you're both making essentially the same point, I'm going to answer you both in this reply to Ariel, I'll try and cover the points you made in your separate post, in this one, if that's ok) have offered by way of examples to illustrate faith.I think they are bogus and are nothing more than examples of blind faith, ergo, in THIS context, not generally, there is very little between what you are descibing as faith and what I am suggesting is actually blind faith. I made it perfectly clear in my post that I was specifically talking about THIS context, please feel free to go back and check. Why do I believe that the examples you (and he) have given, don't warrant a reason to have 'faith'? You've said that there is evidence that Trump strives for peace and then used the examples of Afghanistan and him claiming that he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict as examples of this. SURRENDERING to the Taliban is NOT striving for peace, there are 26,000,000 women in Afghanistan who are now nothing much more than slaves. ANYBODY can RUN AWAY from a war but that doesn't then demonstrate that you are a peacemaker. In my opinion, Trump couldn't give two fucks about peace in Afghanistan, rather his PRIMARY concern was, to end the amount of money the US was spending on the war. So no, I don't accept the example of Afghanistan as a reason to have faith that Trump strives for peace, to me, using this example fails spectacularly, leaving you with nothing more than BLIND faith that he can do so. The other example you offered, of him striving for peace, was his claim that he wants to END the Ukraine-Russia war. But what does END actually mean in this context? He has also said ... "America is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine NOT Putin." "Zelensky should never have let the war start." And just last week, it was reported that Manafort, Trump’s 2nd campaign manager, had met with a Putin ally, with Trump’s implicit approval, to discuss a deal allowing Russia to annex part of Ukraine. There are videos emerging now from Ukraine, of Uktanian soldiers lining up effigies of Trump in mock firing squads, do you think THEY are expecting him to bring 'peace' to the region? So know I don't accept that example as a reason to have 'faith' that Trump strives for peace either. Indeed I don't believe that there ANY examples available to give us faith that Trump strives for peace, indeed imo, to suggest that he does, is nothing more than blind faith. You keep confusing the concepts of faith and blind faith. Faith is placing trust in something/someone based on personal experiences, historical context, being open to questioning and reasoning (basis in evidence, room for questioning and doubts with understanding, and rational consideration and balance between belief and reason).Blind Faith is believing someone/something without evidence, discouraging questioning, and being resistant to logic (acceptance of belief without facts and absence of evidence, resistance to questioning or critical thinking or alternative views, and unwavering adherence regardless of logic).The fact that Salop gave evidence for his view demonstrates that he can have faith in what he said as he is basing it on evidence and rationale. Put succinctly, you have chosen not to accept that there is evidence Trump did try to end the Afghanistan conflict and does want to end the Ukraine conflict, based on the application of your own opinion as to motive - which is not the same as those facts not existing. That's merely you openly developing your own view - which is fine - and then applying your own notions of motive to those facts. That neither diminishes the evidence that Trump wanted to end both the Afghanistan and Ukraine conflicts as facts and nor does it change them being facts. It is merely your opinion that you don't want to recognise them, based on your opinion of what motives should be applied. In short, salopstick was correct in what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 8, 2024 14:55:54 GMT
The point that you're not getting, or indeed I'm failing to make, is that I don't accept the examples that both you and salopstick (sorry mate, as you're both making essentially the same point, I'm going to answer you both in this reply to Ariel, I'll try and cover the points you made in your separate post, in this one, if that's ok) have offered by way of examples to illustrate faith.I think they are bogus and are nothing more than examples of blind faith, ergo, in THIS context, not generally, there is very little between what you are descibing as faith and what I am suggesting is actually blind faith. I made it perfectly clear in my post that I was specifically talking about THIS context, please feel free to go back and check. Why do I believe that the examples you (and he) have given, don't warrant a reason to have 'faith'? You've said that there is evidence that Trump strives for peace and then used the examples of Afghanistan and him claiming that he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict as examples of this. SURRENDERING to the Taliban is NOT striving for peace, there are 26,000,000 women in Afghanistan who are now nothing much more than slaves. ANYBODY can RUN AWAY from a war but that doesn't then demonstrate that you are a peacemaker. In my opinion, Trump couldn't give two fucks about peace in Afghanistan, rather his PRIMARY concern was, to end the amount of money the US was spending on the war. So no, I don't accept the example of Afghanistan as a reason to have faith that Trump strives for peace, to me, using this example fails spectacularly, leaving you with nothing more than BLIND faith that he can do so. The other example you offered, of him striving for peace, was his claim that he wants to END the Ukraine-Russia war. But what does END actually mean in this context? He has also said ... "America is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine NOT Putin." "Zelensky should never have let the war start." And just last week, it was reported that Manafort, Trump’s 2nd campaign manager, had met with a Putin ally, with Trump’s implicit approval, to discuss a deal allowing Russia to annex part of Ukraine. There are videos emerging now from Ukraine, of Uktanian soldiers lining up effigies of Trump in mock firing squads, do you think THEY are expecting him to bring 'peace' to the region? So know I don't accept that example as a reason to have 'faith' that Trump strives for peace either. Indeed I don't believe that there ANY examples available to give us faith that Trump strives for peace, indeed imo, to suggest that he does, is nothing more than blind faith. You keep confusing the concepts of faith and blind faith. Faith is placing trust in something/someone based on personal experiences, historical context, being open to questioning and reasoning (basis in evidence, room for questioning and doubts with understanding, and rational consideration and balance between belief and reason).Blind Faith is believing someone/something without evidence, discouraging questioning, and being resistant to logic (acceptance of belief without facts and absence of evidence, resistance to questioning or critical thinking or alternative views, and unwavering adherence regardless of logic).The fact that Salop gave evidence for his view demonstrates that he can have faith in what he said as he is basing it on evidence and rationale. Put succinctly, you have chosen not to accept that there is evidence Trump did try to end the Afghanistan conflict and does want to end the Ukraine conflict, based on the application of your own opinion as to motive - which is not the same as those facts not existing. That's merely you openly developing your own view - which is fine - and then applying your own notions of motive to those facts. That neither diminishes the evidence that Trump wanted to end both the Afghanistan and Ukraine conflicts as facts and nor does it change them being facts. It is merely your opinion that you don't want to recognise them, based on your opinion of what motives should be applied. In short, salopstick was correct in what he said. They're not 'facts' though. I havent been presented with a single 'fact' that demonstrates that Trump strives for peace, not one. Just because somebody believes that they are facts, doesn't then make them facts. Demonstrable by the fact that there isn't ANY evidence or rationale to support the claim, there has been absolutely zip and the reason for that is simple, it doesn't exist. Oh and I'm not confusing faith with with blind faith, I'm demonstrating that in the absence of facts, faith then becomes nothing more than blind faith. Trump's proposal for 'peace', is in fact actually the same as Putin's proposal for peace, well blow me, just who'd have thunk it eh? 🤦♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 15:18:56 GMT
You keep confusing the concepts of faith and blind faith. Faith is placing trust in something/someone based on personal experiences, historical context, being open to questioning and reasoning (basis in evidence, room for questioning and doubts with understanding, and rational consideration and balance between belief and reason).Blind Faith is believing someone/something without evidence, discouraging questioning, and being resistant to logic (acceptance of belief without facts and absence of evidence, resistance to questioning or critical thinking or alternative views, and unwavering adherence regardless of logic).The fact that Salop gave evidence for his view demonstrates that he can have faith in what he said as he is basing it on evidence and rationale. Put succinctly, you have chosen not to accept that there is evidence Trump did try to end the Afghanistan conflict and does want to end the Ukraine conflict, based on the application of your own opinion as to motive - which is not the same as those facts not existing. That's merely you openly developing your own view - which is fine - and then applying your own notions of motive to those facts. That neither diminishes the evidence that Trump wanted to end both the Afghanistan and Ukraine conflicts as facts and nor does it change them being facts. It is merely your opinion that you don't want to recognise them, based on your opinion of what motives should be applied. In short, salopstick was correct in what he said. They're not 'facts' though. Just because somebody believes that they are facts, doesn't then make them facts. Demonstrable by the fact that there isn't ANY evidence or rationale to support the claim. Oh and I'm not confusing faith with with blind faith, I'm demonstrating that in the absence of facts, faith then becomes nothing more than blind faith. You haven't doubted the evidence Salop cited one bit. You've merely provided your opinion about the motives behind those two incontrovertible facts. We can all see what salopstick was saying. salopstick was not using the idea that Trump hadn't started wars to demonstrate that he could end them. salopstick was correctly differentiating between the concepts of faith and blind faith. Salop said: "It’s not blind faith as (Trump) does not have form for conflict. You have to have faith (Trump) will strive for peace in Europe and the Middle East"
and "There is a difference between faith and blind faith. (Trump) has form for not war mongering. You can have faith (Trump) carries on in the same vein."Salop said there he has faith that Trump wants to end wars as there is evidence that he strives for peace. There is tangible evidence that Trump does have the desire to negotiate a conclusion to wars. Firstly, he did it with Afghanistan. Secondly, he's openly said he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, Salop can have faith Trump will continue to want to end wars. Salop secondly said there is evidence that Trump has no form for starting wars. There is tangible evidence that Trump does not want to start wars. Firstly, during his first presidential term and his latest presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly emphasised his desire to end conflicts and avoid new wars. Trump has also openly expressed a preference for negotiating and making deals rather than engaging in military conflicts. Trump's stance has been to avoid prolonged military engagements. So, Salop can have faith that Trump will continue in that vein. Both of Salop's statements are truisms. Ultimately, your initial argument was that it's possible for there to be very little difference between faith and blind faith. You are now arguing that the concept of faith can develop into a new concept of blind faith - which is not what your initial view was nor what you initially said to Salop as we can see. It's a very moot point, but your use of the word successful is not vital to the point you were trying to make at all, primarily because s uccessful is subjective and you never defined what your version of successful is ... until now. Either way, Trump will be spending the next two months pedalling back slightly from his harsher electoral rhetoric. You've said that there is evidence that Trump strives for peace and then used the examples of Afghanistan and him claiming that he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict as examples of this evidence and that they were both 'truisms'. SURRENDERING to the Taliban is NOT striving for peace, there are 26,000,000 women in Afghanistan who are now nothing much more than slaves. ANYBODY can RUN AWAY from a war but that doesn't then demonstrate that you are a peacemaker. In my opinion, Trump couldn't give two fucks about peace in Afghanistan, rather his PRIMARY concern was, to end the amount of money the US was spending on the war. So no, I don't accept the example of Afghanistan as a reason to have faith that Trump strives for peace, to me, using this example fails spectacularly, leaving you with nothing more than BLIND faith that he can do so. The other example you offered, of him striving for peace, was his claim that he wants to END the Ukraine-Russia war. But what does END actually mean in this context? So no I don't accept this example is a reason to have 'faith' that Trump strives for peace either. Indeed I don't believe that there are ANY examples available to give us faith that Trump strives for peace, indeed imo, to suggest that he does, is nothing more than an example of blind faith. Fact 1 - you openly acknowledged above that is there evidence that Trump wanted to end the Afghanistan conflict, and go on to cite how Trump's administration negotiated (or your view that it "surrendered", as you put it) a peace agreement with the Taliban, which set the terms for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. You merely give an opinion about the motivation behind Trump ending the Afghanistan conflict. Others may disagree. That does not change Trump wanting to end the Afghanistan conflict being a fact. Fact 2 - you openly acknowledge there is evidence suggesting that Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the conflict quickly, even stating he could do so within 24 hours of being elected by negotiating with Russia, Ukraine, and European stakeholders to achieve a peaceful settlement. You have merely given your opinion as to what an end to that conflict means. Others may disagree with you, but either way it does not change Trump wanting to end the Ukraine conflict being a fact. It's logical to question the motives behind those facts, but that questioning does not change them being facts. Ironically enough, the deliberate (or even accidental) conflation of opinion with facts is Trumponian. salopstick was perfectly correct with what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 8, 2024 15:23:23 GMT
They're not 'facts' though. Just because somebody believes that they are facts, doesn't then make them facts. Demonstrable by the fact that there isn't ANY evidence or rationale to support the claim. Oh and I'm not confusing faith with with blind faith, I'm demonstrating that in the absence of facts, faith then becomes nothing more than blind faith. You haven't doubted the evidence Salop cited one bit. You've merely provided your opinion about the motives behind those two incontrovertible facts. You've said that there is evidence that Trump strives for peace and then used the examples of Afghanistan and him claiming that he wants to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict as examples of this evidence and that they were both 'truisms'. SURRENDERING to the Taliban is NOT striving for peace, there are 26,000,000 women in Afghanistan who are now nothing much more than slaves. ANYBODY can RUN AWAY from a war but that doesn't then demonstrate that you are a peacemaker. In my opinion, Trump couldn't give two fucks about peace in Afghanistan, rather his PRIMARY concern was, to end the amount of money the US was spending on the war. So no, I don't accept the example of Afghanistan as a reason to have faith that Trump strives for peace, to me, using this example fails spectacularly, leaving you with nothing more than BLIND faith that he can do so. The other example you offered, of him striving for peace, was his claim that he wants to END the Ukraine-Russia war. But what does END actually mean in this context? So no I don't accept this example is a reason to have 'faith' that Trump strives for peace either. Indeed I don't believe that there are ANY examples available to give us faith that Trump strives for peace, indeed imo, to suggest that he does, is nothing more than an example of blind faith. Fact 1 - you openly acknowledged above that is there evidence that Trump wanted to end the Afghanistan conflict, and go on to cite how Trump's administration negotiated (or your view that it "surrendered", as you put it) a peace agreement with the Taliban, which set the terms for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. You merely give an opinion about the motivation behind Trump ending the Afghanistan conflict. Others may disagree. That does not change Trump wanting to end the Afghanistan conflict being a fact. Fact 2 - you openly acknowledge there is evidence suggesting that Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the conflict quickly, even stating he could do so within 24 hours of being elected by negotiating with Russia, Ukraine, and European stakeholders to achieve a peaceful settlement. You have merely given your opinion as to what an end to that conflict means. Others may disagree with you, but either way it does not change Trump wanting to end the Ukraine conflict being a fact. It's logical to question the motives behind those facts, but that questioning does not change them being facts. Ironically enough, the deliberate (or even accidental) conflation of opinion with facts is Trumponian. salopstick was perfectly correct with what he said. No. The discussion is NOT about examples of Trump wanting to END wars, it is about there being examples of Trump striving for peace, this (very important) distinction has been repeated to you over and over, since the discussion began and you've repeatedly failed to grasp it. Examples of Trump wanting to end wars are NOT incontrovertible examples of Trump striving for peace. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 15:37:44 GMT
You haven't doubted the evidence Salop cited one bit. You've merely provided your opinion about the motives behind those two incontrovertible facts. Fact 1 - you openly acknowledged above that is there evidence that Trump wanted to end the Afghanistan conflict, and go on to cite how Trump's administration negotiated (or your view that it "surrendered", as you put it) a peace agreement with the Taliban, which set the terms for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. You merely give an opinion about the motivation behind Trump ending the Afghanistan conflict. Others may disagree. That does not change Trump wanting to end the Afghanistan conflict being a fact. Fact 2 - you openly acknowledge there is evidence suggesting that Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the conflict quickly, even stating he could do so within 24 hours of being elected by negotiating with Russia, Ukraine, and European stakeholders to achieve a peaceful settlement. You have merely given your opinion as to what an end to that conflict means. Others may disagree with you, but either way it does not change Trump wanting to end the Ukraine conflict being a fact. It's logical to question the motives behind those facts, but that questioning does not change them being facts. Ironically enough, the deliberate (or even accidental) conflation of opinion with facts is Trumponian. salopstick was perfectly correct with what he said. No you are still wrong. The discussion is NOT about examples of Trump wanting to END wars, it is about thete being examples of Trump striving for peace, this point has been repeated over and over, since the discussion began. Examples of Trump wanting to end wars are NOT incontrovertible examples of Trump striving for peace.1. of course wanting to end war is comparable with striving for peace. you can intrepret anything to fit own peronal opinions. I want peace in ukraine and israel that means i want to end the wars in those two reagions. How it is achieved is a separate argument 2. Trump haters will never give him credit for anything good he does and will continue to slate his every move, blame the people for voting for him thicj racist idiots etc etc. Everything but look to the other side of why they cant offer anything worthwhile to beat him at the ballot. (not aimed at you directly Paul) |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 8, 2024 16:01:23 GMT
No you are still wrong. The discussion is NOT about examples of Trump wanting to END wars, it is about thete being examples of Trump striving for peace, this point has been repeated over and over, since the discussion began. Examples of Trump wanting to end wars are NOT incontrovertible examples of Trump striving for peace.1. of course wanting to end war is comparable with striving for peace. Well at least you've managed to nail in a single sentence, what this whole discussion (maybe confusion?) is actually about. And I completely and totally disagree with you. Just because somebody wants to end a war, doesn't then necessarily mean they actually care one jot about peace being a result of it ending. You think it does and that's why you think you've given examples of Trump striving for peace and I don't think it does and that's why I don't think that you HAVE given examples of him doing so. It's a fundamental difference in opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with not giving Trump 'credit'. I guess we have no other option but to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 20:51:46 GMT
No you are still wrong. The discussion is NOT about examples of Trump wanting to END wars, it is about thete being examples of Trump striving for peace, this point has been repeated over and over, since the discussion began. Examples of Trump wanting to end wars are NOT incontrovertible examples of Trump striving for peace.1. of course wanting to end war is comparable with striving for peace. you can intrepret anything to fit own peronal opinions. I want peace in ukraine and israel that means i want to end the wars in those two reagions. How it is achieved is a separate argument 2. Trump haters will never give him credit for anything good he does and will continue to slate his every move, blame the people for voting for him thicj racist idiots etc etc. Everything but look to the other side of why they cant offer anything worthwhile to beat him at the ballot. (not aimed at you directly Paul) I'm no fan of Trump, but even I understood your logic, there. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 21:19:37 GMT
You haven't doubted the evidence Salop cited one bit. You've merely provided your opinion about the motives behind those two incontrovertible facts. Fact 1 - you openly acknowledged above that is there evidence that Trump wanted to end the Afghanistan conflict, and go on to cite how Trump's administration negotiated (or your view that it "surrendered", as you put it) a peace agreement with the Taliban, which set the terms for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. You merely give an opinion about the motivation behind Trump ending the Afghanistan conflict. Others may disagree. That does not change Trump wanting to end the Afghanistan conflict being a fact. Fact 2 - you openly acknowledge there is evidence suggesting that Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the conflict quickly, even stating he could do so within 24 hours of being elected by negotiating with Russia, Ukraine, and European stakeholders to achieve a peaceful settlement. You have merely given your opinion as to what an end to that conflict means. Others may disagree with you, but either way it does not change Trump wanting to end the Ukraine conflict being a fact. It's logical to question the motives behind those facts, but that questioning does not change them being facts. Ironically enough, the deliberate (or even accidental) conflation of opinion with facts is Trumponian. salopstick was perfectly correct with what he said. No you are still wrong. The discussion is NOT about examples of Trump wanting to END wars, it is about thete being examples of Trump striving for peace, this point has been repeated over and over, since the discussion began. Examples of Trump wanting to end wars are NOT incontrovertible examples of Trump striving for peace. Great. Dario G has reverted back to the "I'm right, you're wrong" gaslighting form that's now synonymous with him. Peculiarly strange when in the next breath he finally acknowledges that he wasn't arguing about the existence of facts at all - but differences of opinion about what he believes the motivations behind those facts are. 1. of course wanting to end war is comparable with striving for peace. Well at least you've managed to nail in a single sentence, what this whole discussion (maybe confusion?) is actually about. And I completely and totally disagree with you. Just because somebody wants to end a war, doesn't then necessarily mean they actually care one jot about peace being a result of it ending. You think it does and that's why you think you've given examples of Trump striving for peace and I don't think it does and that's why I don't think that you HAVE given examples of him doing so. It's a fundamental difference in opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with not giving Trump 'credit'. I guess we have no other option but to agree to disagree. Needless to say Dario G would be fucking useless in a political theory seminar. Carnaval de Paris! |
|
nor did he think Lammy would end up as Foreign Secretary 
