SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
America's new president gave an address to a joint session of Congress. The Los Angeles Times posted a full transcript of the speech (along with remarks from its staff that may require Javascript to view); Bloomberg uploaded a video of the event.
The New York Times called it "the most presidential speech Mr. Trump has ever given — delivered at precisely the moment he needed to project sobriety, seriousness of purpose and self-discipline."
[Ed. Note: This is the first story specifically placed into the Politics Nexus. The intent is that most stories with a predominantly political topic will be in this Nexus. They will appear on the main page with other stories under default settings, but individual logged in users can choose to turn off any Nexus so the stories published therein are not shown. The setting to change visibility of Nexi is on your preferences page under the tab marked "Homepage."]
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 01 2017, @10:04PM (9 children)
It is the only logical explanation for your adherence to Trump. I've seen the symptom many times before, logical rational people still think they're being logical and rational when their emotions are actually compromised. I'll just sit back and enjoy this turnabout where "your team" shows everyone that they are actually the special snowflakes that can't bear criticism.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 01 2017, @10:35PM (8 children)
I can point to lies uttered by a fair number of previous presidents or their proxies: "You can keep your health insurance, if you want to", "There are WMD in Iraq", "I didn't have sex with that woman", "Read my lips, no new taxes", etc. And the only time an impeachment occurred was for lying in court - perjury, which is a felony.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 01 2017, @10:59PM (7 children)
EVERYONE should be tearing him a new one and demanding impeachment.
I guess you can't tell an opinion apart from a factual claim. I did not say he could be impeached, I did not say he will be impeached, and I did not say I have evidence strong enough to impeach him for. For that we'll need the FBI and probably CIA to weigh in on Trump's accountability for Flynn and other Russian ties.
I said we should impeach him.
But hey, don't let me stop your train of righteous indignation!! Please, spin the discussion off into inconsequential areas /s You're very much like Trump, you are full of yourself, think you're always correct, and never backpedal when called out for having conflicting viewpoints. You say what is convenient and useful to your argument at hand, and seem to only care about facts when they support your own world view. Calling me out for things which are 50% fabricated in your imagination is... frustratingly funny I guess.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 02 2017, @12:16AM (5 children)
But hey, don't let me stop your train of righteous indignation!!
I had this vague impression after your talk of logic, reason, etc that you might have wanted fact-based opinions rather than opinions that didn't matter.
You're very much like Trump, you are full of yourself, think you're always correct, and never backpedal when called out for having conflicting viewpoints.
Yet here I am being "called out". Is this just another opinion that doesn't matter? Because it sure sounds a lot like your "Trump should be impeached" opinion in its lack of reliance on factual claims.
You say what is convenient and useful to your argument at hand
Reason often works that way. I find particularly that the tools of the disassembly of an argument often lie in plain view in the argument or in simple observations. And I see once again, someone typing away about how I'm such a terrible debater or whatnot without even a single example. I've been treating that as of late as projection since the speculations about my behavior seem to have nothing to do with my behavior.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday March 02 2017, @12:40AM (4 children)
No no, just long term observation. Your comments tend to stick out because they are rationally inflammatory, and I get to see how so often people respond with good information only to have you double down on whatever bullcrap you've got going on. So I'm not putting too much effort into this thread, it is tiring to waste serious thought and analysis so I'll just spew my off-the-cuff thoughts about your responses.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 02 2017, @04:09AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 02 2017, @04:37AM (2 children)
As an AC poster noted [soylentnews.org]:
His train of righteous indignation? You're the one calling for everyone to rise up and impeach Trump while admitting there's no legal reason to do so. You're the one calling for a witch hunt.
If you were instead some Republican false flag operation, could you present a worse argument, undermining the case against Trump, than you actually have? I think not. Crying wolf on extremely frivolous grounds is a very effective way to destroy an argument.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)
Your analogy fails because the wolf is there, just dummies like yourself can't see it or don't believe the wolf is actually going to eat your sheep. As I already stated the call for impeachment was opinion, I don't have the concrete evidence necessary to accuse Trump of actual treason. So far we only have near-criminal levels of incompetence.
The conspiracy trick was created by Nixon and his yes-men, are you really that old? Thankfully it isn't an issue, the majority of US citizens agree with me that Trump sucks. Hard pill to swallow huh? Next time don't back a Turd.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 03 2017, @04:37AM
As I already stated the call for impeachment was opinion, I don't have the concrete evidence necessary to accuse Trump of actual treason.
As long as Trump follows the rule of law (at least as well as the other presidents who managed to not get impeached, which is a fairly low standard) and/or evidence of wrong doing of sufficient scale doesn't turn up in a few years, then the grounds for impeachment just don't exist. With your fake accusation, you provide material support to your alleged enemies (here, Trump and his supporters). That calls into question your motives. Are you actually trying to resist Trump's rise to power? Or are you undermining opposition to Trump by crying wolf [wikipedia.org], merely pretending to be in opposition to Trump on spurious grounds?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @02:30AM
His train of righteous indignation? You're the one calling for everyone to rise up and impeach Trump while admitting there's no legal reason to do so. You're the one calling for a witch hunt.
Trump will be a horrible president. Out of that we might get some good as the government fights against itself instead of colluding for itself. I do prefer someone who will tell me an easily detectable lie to my face than someone who'll stab me in the back while acting like my friend. Almost all politicians are corrupt bastards. Trump is at least a little more open about it, so that puts him above the others. It certainly doesn't make him a good person, but the bar is really low in Washington.
Out of the options we were given during the last election, sadly Trump was the best choice with a chance of winning.