ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

Trump: "I built a lot of wall. I have a lot of money and I built a lot of wall."

As of Friday, no new miles of wall have been constructed during Trump's tenure, but preparations are underway.

Customs and Border Protection has awarded contracts for around 14 miles of new wall. Construction in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas is expected to begin this month. Site preparations have already begun, according to a senior CBP official.

However, replacement projects have been constructed during Trump's time in office. A number of contracts have been awarded, funded by appropriations from Congress for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years. Among them: Nearly $300 million to build 40 miles of replacement structures in multiple locations. As of December, 35 of those 40 miles had been completed, according to Andrew Meehan, CBP's assistant commissioner for public affairs.

Trump sure has a funny idea of 'a lot'.

Ann Coulter is in agreement with you. At least as far as lying about wall construction goes. As am I.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

Trump: "A big majority of the big drugs, the big drug loads don't go through ports of entry"

The only drug that is smuggled in higher numbers between legal entry points is marijuana, according to CBP and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Ninety percent of heroin seized at the border in fiscal year 2018 was apprehended at ports of entry.

The majority of meth, too, is detained at the border. In fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border Protection seized 67,292 pounds of methamphetamine at legal ports of entry, compared with 10,382 pounds by Border Patrol agents in between ports, based on available data.

Because drugs that are seized is a sample of smuggled drugs that we can trust is random and representative.

Oh wait, no we can't.

That said, I concede that while the claim that most drugs are smuggled through ports of entry rests of shaky logic, Trump's claim of the opposite rests on something close to raw blind faith. While it's perhaps most accurate to say that we don't really know how much drugs are smuggled into the country annually, your claim is more likely than Trump's.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

Trump: "President Obama put on more debt on this country than every president in the history of our country combined."

This is false.

Come on, does that even need to be fact-checked?

https://www.independent.co.uk/infact/donald-trump-barack-obama-administration-debt-wiped-out-truth-us-government-borrowing-a7996181.html

"

In January 2009, when Obama took office the value of the US public debt was $10.6 trillion. When he left office in January 2017 it was $19.9 trillion.

Technically, Trump was wrong. But he was really close to being correct. So close that I might call this a fuckup instead of a lie.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

Trump: "We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn't be there and we'll possibly get a bad ruling, and then we'll get another bad ruling and then we'll end up at the Supreme Court, and hopefully we'll get a fair shake."

He's not wrong to expect lawsuits.

Glad we all agree on something.

Yep. And I'm not as optimistic Trump will win. There's a decent argument to be made that the legislature obviously does not consider the border situation to be a national emergency. Thus SCOTUS is in the position of deciding, if the legislature and the executive are in disagreement about the existence of such an emergency, is the claim to one valid? It's a checks and balances case. I could easily imagine the Court siding with Congress on this.

Since it seems some people do not know what "direct evidence" means.

"

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

In direct evidence, a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come through any sense, including smell, touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence

The crime of conspiracy is usually proven using "circumstantial evidence" rather than direct evidence.

"

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence, the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of mens rea, or intent. The same goes for the plaintiff's establishing the negligence of tortfeasors in tort law to recover damages from them.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. In the case of someone charged with theft of money, were the suspect seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items shortly after the time of the alleged theft, the spree might prove to be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

Forensic evidence

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

Validity of circumstantial evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does.

Eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable, or subject to conflict or outright fabrication. For example, the RMS Titanic sank in the presence of approximately 700 witnesses. For many years, there was vigorous debate on whether the ship broke into two before sinking. It was not until the ship was found, in September 1985, that the truth was known.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

"

It's a strawman of my position to say we KNOW the hack was local. But, based on empirical evidence, we have excellent cause to SUSPECT that such is the case.

You have one person who isn't a professional saying one thing and all the other professionals saying something different. You believe this person because it's what you want to believe.

"

That's kinda like believing Bush 43 was actually stupid. From what I hear Trump watches FOX News, not InfoWars; he just appeared on InfoWars, meaning Trump blatantly appealed to conspiracy theorists during his campaign, that he's friendly to them, not that he is one himself.

If you want to attack him for that friendliness, I guess that's fair. But I think you're trying to mindread by saying he is one himself.

I guess taking what he says is mindreading but pretending it's all just pandering isn't huh?

Years of birtherism, climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, vaccines cause autism and all the other crap shouldn't be taken serious because he has a R in front of his name.

"

Especially now that Senate Dems admit to no hard evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

They couldn't get Reagan either but everyone knows he was involved in Iran-Contra.

The man surrounds himself with shady people. Said his campaign and himself had no dealings or contact with Russia. We know this is all a lie.
Somehow you blindly trust this man. You aren't curious about why they told any of these lies? I'm sure you'll spin this all to some 5D Chinese checkers.

"

Revisionist history much? Was Birtherism covered? Yeah, sure. But not nearly to the extent of this bogus russophobic conspiracy theory. This represents a yuge left-wing escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil.

It's you who forget history. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember Clinton years? Maybe you forgot about screaming Benghazi for 5 years or the ten investigations? All for political reasons. The right has done this every time a democrat is in office and you say its Democrats who escalated? The party of person responsibility strikes again.

"

As I said, unprecedented escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil. Irresponsible and dangerous. They've been occasionally full of shit since they sold us on Iraq having WMDs, but this is a blatant quadrupling down.

It was Republicans who sold us the Iraq war and shamed anyone as unpatriotic unless people went along with. Besides the public should take much of the blame for letting anger over 911 fool us.
I'm not saying the media isn't shit but people on the right have zero credibility crying fake news when they don't apply the criticism to both sides. They often rant about CNN and then go back to right wing news that's just as bad or worse.

It's amazing how you can put such faith in a guy who lies more then anybody I've ever seen. Maybe try holding the President to the same standards you hold the media to.

"

In January 2009, when Obama took office the value of the US public debt was $10.6 trillion. When he left office in January 2017 it was $19.9 trillion.

Technically, Trump was wrong. But he was really close to being correct. So close that I might call this a fuckup instead of a lie.

Except this is just the typical partisan BS that we contribute to Presidents. Kinda like how every job made and stock market move is somehow the presidents doing.

It also ignores that Obama was given a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, the worst recession since the great depression and multiple wars. The deficit went down every year he was in office.
Trump came in under one of the most stable times in decades and doubled it in a couple years.
If it's a Democrat in office deficits are a big deal. If it's a republican deficits don't matter. Thats what Reagan and Cheney told us anyways.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

SnowCrash wrote:

Says the Seth Rich conspiracy theorist

My positions on that are:
* Rich WAS NOT murdered by DNC/Clinton campaign
* Rich MAY HAVE BEEN WikiLeaks' source

The evidence from Rich's murder points strongly to two conclusions: that it WAS NOT a professional assassination (Rich lived to see paramedics arrive) and that Rich FOUGHT BACK against his assailants instead of comply with instructions (which strongly implies it was NOT a friend or acquaintance who killed him, given the time frames). The narrative that best synthesizes these conclusions is that Rich's assailants were mundane muggers but Rich believed they wouldn't let him live even if he followed instructions.

What kind of person is paranoid enough to think people might be out to kill him? Someone who's done something against the wrong people. Maybe "the wrong people" wasn't the DNC; maybe he angered a DC pimp, who knows. I can't prove it was the DNC.

Assange has hinted rather strongly that Rich was his source for the DNC emails, without ever saying it. I, however, keep circumstantial evidence in its proper context. I can't say Rich was the leaker, but someone was. Could have been him.

I mostly use "his name was Seth Rich" etc ironically, just substituting in his name as a stand-in for whoever it was who valiantly blew the whistle on the DNC cheating Sanders. It's a joke. For what it's worth, I do think Rich is the person most likely to have been the leaker, even if that probability is admittedly under 50%.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

who helped put a conspiracy theorist in the white house.

That's kinda like believing Bush 43 was actually stupid. From what I hear Trump watches FOX News, not InfoWars; he just appeared on InfoWars, meaning Trump blatantly appealed to conspiracy theorists during his campaign, that he's friendly to them, not that he is one himself.

If you want to attack him for that friendliness, I guess that's fair. But I think you're trying to mindread by saying he is one himself.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

That actually takes sites like the Forensicator serious. who's analysis is done by a nutty climate change conspiracy theorist.

I have no idea what The Forensicator's views on climate change are. They're irrelevant to his arguments regarding computer forensics.

I don't mean to imply that The Forensicator's analysis PROVED that the leak was via local USB, only that, by Occam's Razor, that it is the MOST LIKELY interpretation of the evidence. By way of analogy: two police detectives visit the scene of a gruesome death. The dead man is sitting in a chair, gunshot exit wound in the back of his head, with a bottle of liquor and pictures of his his recently murdered wife on the table. Gunpowder analysis of the corpse's hand is consistent with a self-inflicted shot to the mouth. Detective Forensicator says "suicide;" Detective Crowdstrike, who recently watched Equalizer 2, says "he Russian mob assassinated him." Is Inspector Crowdstrike provably wrong? No. Is Inspector Forensicator provably correct? Also no. But one of these things is much more likely than the other, and Occam's Razor applies.

What you're saying is that we should ignore Inspector Forensicator's analysis and mock those who listen to him because muh climate change. False. Merely pointing out that the evidence COULD HAVE been counterfeited, or resorting to ad hominem, is insufficient to summarily dismiss it! Forensicator's argument stands.

It's a strawman of my position to say we KNOW the hack was local. But, based on empirical evidence, we have excellent cause to SUSPECT that such is the case. Especially now that Senate Dems admit to no hard evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

If this was a Democrat in office you all would be even worse then the left about it. Past history shows this.

Oh please. Revisionist history much? Was Birtherism covered? Yeah, sure. But not nearly to the extent of this bogus russophobic conspiracy theory. This represents a yuge left-wing escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I like how the right freak out about msm while running off to some youtube propagandist.

As I said, unprecedented escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil. Irresponsible and dangerous. They've been occasionally full of shit since they sold us on Iraq having WMDs, but this is a blatant quadrupling down.

Trump is totally a conspiracy theorist.

Birther movement
Climate change denial
News medias are all fake news
Amount of energy in one's body is pre-determined, so exercise is bad

I'm sure I'm missing some

"

faerwin wrote:

Trump is totally a conspiracy theorist.

Birther movement
Climate change denial
News medias are all fake news
Amount of energy in one's body is pre-determined, so exercise is bad

I'm sure I'm missing some

That is how democracy work. Get everybody rile up so that they would vote. Doesn't matter how stupid their reason is.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

It's a strawman of my position to say we KNOW the hack was local. But, based on empirical evidence, we have excellent cause to SUSPECT that such is the case.

You have one person who isn't a professional saying one thing and all the other professionals saying something different. You believe this person because it's what you want to believe.

That fallacy is called appeal to authority. I get why people use it, though: learning a subject thoroughly can be time-consuming, so it's easier just so point and say "I trust them."

As I've said before, it IS possible to doctor that kind of evidence, but usually it's accurate. I actually get why some experts would come out and say this doesn't prove anything amid claims that it does, because it doesn't PROVE it. But it's highly suggestive.

Here's another way of looking at it: there are basically three possibilities:
1. The DNC hack was local involving a USB drive,
2. The leaker passed off doctored data to Wikileaks as real, or
3. Wikileaks knew the data was doctored and released it anyway.
These are progressively less likely. Wikileaks confirms their sources so they know how the leak occurred; if the leaker lied, Wikileaks could check their story. And if Wikileaks ever was caught releasing inaccurate content knowingly, their reputation with their base would be destroyed.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

That's kinda like believing Bush 43 was actually stupid. From what I hear Trump watches FOX News, not InfoWars; he just appeared on InfoWars, meaning Trump blatantly appealed to conspiracy theorists during his campaign, that he's friendly to them, not that he is one himself.

If you want to attack him for that friendliness, I guess that's fair. But I think you're trying to mindread by saying he is one himself.

I guess taking what he says is mindreading but pretending it's all just pandering isn't huh?

In general it's wise to assume every fucking thing a politician says is pandering, until and unless they effect policy in a concrete way. The recent Ann Coulter criticisms of Trump can be summed up in two points: The Wall is needed yesterday, and Trump was just pandering to his base when he spoke about The Wall. I know you're not keen on the former, but it wasn't hard to garner bipartisan agreement on the latter because people are used to politicians (particularly of the party oppositr theirs) pandering and promising and never delivering. It's thoroughly mundane by now.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

Revisionist history much? Was Birtherism covered? Yeah, sure. But not nearly to the extent of this bogus russophobic conspiracy theory. This represents a yuge left-wing escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil.

It's you who forget history. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember Clinton years?

Fuck, you can really hold a grudge. That's long ago. However, Whitewater wasn't covered nearly as much on television as Mueller is now, and the resulting Lewenski scandal, while it should have been irrelevant, had the virtue of ACTUALLY HAVING DIRECT EVIDENCE PROVING ITS ALLEGATIONS. In jizz stain form. Y'all have less than that on Trump.

And guess what the Republicans won for their efforts? Bill Clinton's popularity surged after the true-but-still-bullshit impeachment. As he deserved.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

Maybe you forgot about screaming Benghazi for 5 years or the ten investigations? All for political reasons. The right has done this every time a democrat is in office and you say its Democrats who escalated? The party of person responsibility strikes again.

I'll be totally honest: I didn't follow Benghazi and only know the bare basics. But I did follow the resulting email server scandal, and again there was direct evidence that Clinton mishandled classified information, directly admitted by Comey in that infamous press conference. Those allegations were true.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

As I said, unprecedented escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil. Irresponsible and dangerous. They've been occasionally full of shit since they sold us on Iraq having WMDs, but this is a blatant quadrupling down.

It was Republicans who sold us the Iraq war and shamed anyone as unpatriotic unless people went along with. Besides the public should take much of the blame for letting anger over 911 fool us.

Wow. As if pointing out that other people are guilty somehow makes one innocent.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I'm not saying the media isn't shit

That seemed to be your implication one sentence ago. But okay, you're just trying to say that everyone is guilty because they all believed the lie being fed to them all. Currently.

I'm sorry, but no. I could, but I won't encourage you to be so hard on yourself. You and millions like you believing in Trump-Russia collusion isn't primarily your fault. You're being sold a defective product, and although we've tried to tell you that it's fake news, the corporatist media is still responsible. If there was a problem with contaminated beef and I told you they'd issued a recall and you were like "fuck that, I'm poor, this is all I have to eat and I'm eating it" then you got food poisoning, well, that's a bit dumb on your part but I think you'd have a decent lawsuit against the supplier of said beef. In the same was, I actually hope TDS sufferers are able to get sweet restitution from the media corporations that have poisoned their minds and caused them severe psychological distress. You deserve it, and they deserve to go out of business.

This might sound odd to you, but I'm really sick of corporations fucking things up for everybody and then simply getting away with it, no repercussions.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

but people on the right have zero credibility crying fake news when they don't apply the criticism to both sides. They often rant about CNN and then go back to right wing news that's just as bad or worse.

Oh honey, you don't get it. It's all that bad or worse, except for maybe a few of the non-corporate journalists on the Internet. And even the vast majority of those are fucked. Even the very best sources on the Internet that I love the most tend to have some strong bias or another, a weakness that dilutes their impartiality. There is no news outlet you can trust with your life, and there never will be one. You need to think critically about EVERYONE, 360°, no blind spot, even for your favorites.

I mean for fucks sake, do you think I think I've never said anything false on the Internet? Even I've been fake news. I try to avoid it, but I'm only human. And if I can't count on myself to always be accurate with the facts, by what twisted logic can I hold others to such a standard?

"

SnowCrash wrote:

It's amazing how you can put such faith in a guy who lies more then anybody I've ever seen. Maybe try holding the President to the same standards you hold the media to.

Just earlier in this post you responded to me saying the President was disingenuously pandering to tinfoil hatwearers by saying you think we should take him at his word. Of the two of us, on that issue at least, who has more faith in the words of one Donald J. Trump? You do.

I know Trump lies. I know this because he's a politician and that's what politicians do. It's what the system expects them, incentives them, to do. I knew be was not going to erase the debt in 8 years as soon as I heard it. I thought it'd be a miracle if he got Mexico to pay for the Wall. I don't just believe everything he says. Some, yes; a lot, no.

Just earlier I linked to Ann Coulter on Breitbart talking about how Trump is lying to his base about the Wall.

This myth you have in your head, that Trump supporters are all cultists, it only exists in one place: in the collective unconscious of NeverTrumpers. Not in reality.

"

Best part about the "national emergency" is that Trump himself has already confessed it's a stunt, that it's unnecessary and that he'll lose in court many times over because it's illegal.

He knows with 100% certainty that what he's doing is unconstitutional and illegal, but he's gonna see if the US courts will corruptly make him king. Fun stuff that will not end well for him. :)

Remember the "Muslim ban" (totally not a Muslim ban btw) which got blocked by some activist Hawaiian so called "judge"? Try to remember :)

I like beer btw. And has anyone lately seen the Notorius RBG?

Also Happy Thanksgiving my dudes, almost forgot.

https://streamable.com/2qi9n

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

However, Whitewater wasn't covered nearly as much on television as Mueller is now, and the resulting Lewenski scandal, while it should have been irrelevant, had the virtue of ACTUALLY HAVING DIRECT EVIDENCE PROVING ITS ALLEGATIONS. In jizz stain form. Y'all have less than that on Trump.

You are wrong. The semen on the dress infers evidence that requires further conclusions and so is not direct evidence that Clinton had an affair. I put the definitions there for you. The semen was circumstantial evidence not direct evidence in that case. Very strong circumstantial evidence but still not direct evidence. The direct evidence would be Monica's testimony.

Now if Clinton had said under oath, I never ejaculated on Monica's dress then, the semen on the dress would have been even stronger circumstantial evidence but it would still not be direct evidence that he had lied. If there was a video of Clinton ejaculating on the dress then that would be direct evidence that he lied when he said he did not ejaculate on the dress.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

stuff.

Having fun being Whataboutised by the only Trump supporter here equipped with just enough acumen to pull it off?

You're not even talking about Trump anymore. In case you missed just how well you've been led astray from the topic at hand. But it's all smoke and mirrors: not all crimes are equal; not all transgressions are merely 'wrong'. Regardless of the details, this entire side-tracking is predicated upon a belief that infidelity is somehow just as bad as being an agent for a foreign adversary. I mean, Trump is a world-class philanderer *as well as potentially compromised by Russian oligarchy*, and has certainly lied about it repeatedly. That's like the worst of what Bill Clinton ever did, as the least of what Trump has done.

Try to keep things in perspective here. You've been suckered into arguing pointless semantics about ancient history because it's all the Trumpeteers have left, in the face of just how allergic to the truth their leader really is.

Scrotie is being a stubborn uneducated incorrect bone head about what is direct and circumstantial evidence. I'm indirectly addressing his stupid implicit assertion that direct evidence is somehow better evidence than circumstantial evidence. He is going down this incorrect path just because he wants to defend the traitor Trump. He doesn't even understand what he is talking about. Even after I posted the definitions for him!

Here Scrotie, read it this time.

"

Forensic evidence

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint analysis, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

Validity of circumstantial evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.