Reeeeeeeaaaally.
There’s a reason why I used the car accident as the basis of the question. If it were four people witnessing Trump sexually assualting a woman, they would all obviously be lying.
NM
I don’t care if trump is insane/unstable/or has dementia/Alzheimer’s. Nurture or Nature? Doesn’t’ matter. That’s all pretty much beside the point.
We do know that he is an asshole of the highest level (I don’t need a degree in psychology to recognize a simple minded bully). He cares about one thing - Donald Trump.
When you get a flat tire on a deserted highway, do you look for the nail in the tire? Or do you proceed to fix it? After it is fixed/replaced, you can then evaluate your choice of tires. Sitting around dying of thirst wondering how you got the flat tire is not the optimal thing to do.
You stand there and do nothing because the Code of Ethics of auto mechanics says they can’t diagnose a car until they see it in person.
It shouldn’t take more than 30 minutes, maybe an hour, to change out a flat tire on your car, unless you haven’t a clue how to do it. You’re not going to die of thirst spending a few minutes looking for the nail. 
One needn’t read everything quite so literally.
Of course, it’s not a sub-forum. However, it has the same rules:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818214
and mostly the same moderators.
So it’s a fail for a poster to state, in Elections, “I don’t have to provide a cite, this isn’t Great Debates.” For all intensive purposes (that’s a joke, for those that are literal minded), it is.
And now a question for you personally, running coach. Do you believe that “I saw it on the internet” is a legitimate cite, in any forum?
Why not? You do.
Your argument is with Grrr!, not me. Besides, since when do you accept opinions? You always demand facts even when someone has an opinion.
Where and when?
Of course some nations are far worse off than others - the problem is Trump’s apparent belief that being born in one of those nations makes one an inherently inferior person.
Ultimately it makes no difference whether it’s a debate or not (which, obviously, it is, as are many discussions in many of these forums). If someone has the balls to try to claim unsupported assertions as automatically valid points, I have the good sense to assign them no credibility whatsoever. (Btw, what they’re doing is trying to assign the rules of a court of law, in which the stakes are significantly higher than winning a point or trophy, to debate, to their advantage. To answer the kid who importuned Shoeless Joe, it just ain’t so.)
Quite sad that this even has to be spelled out.
That is also a wrong Trump think.
Just because the leadership of a nation is corrupt and incompetent, doesnt mean the resident of that nation are also bad. I mean, based upon that kind of thinking no one would take USA immigrants…
Heck, wanting to, and undertaking the significant hassle required to, *leave *the s**hole, suggests you are a person with drive and aspirations towards something better. I think we *want *that kind of people.
There are shitholes in every country. That doesn’t make the whole continent a shithole. Mr.Trump should go see the reservations in Oklahoma. Or the poor areas in any town. Or the main streets of small cities where Wal-Mart has knocked out the local businesses.
Obligatory Two Scoops: But we have the BEST shitholes! Really beautiful shitholes!
There’s no secret to what Trump meant by “shithole” - places where people are generally assumed to be black and poor (Africa, Haiti) as opposed to places where they are white and prosperous (like Norway, thanks to their oil wealth.)
Prove it.
“No”.
Regards,
Shodan
Not to defend Clothahump, while I think his characterization of the facts is inaccurate, he’s not entirely wrong in pointing out that there are some troubling questions about the book (I assume he’s talking about Wolff) that won’t go away. Like how he got access, and what kind of access did he really have, and is he really sure that 100% of the people around Trump feel he’s too stupid to do the job. It’s clear he got much of it right, but as I said on another thread, if he gets 5-10% of wrong, then it calls into question even the things he got right. I reject the modern view among many new-age journalists that it’s okay to get most of it right. What’s worse about Wolff is that he’s not the kind of guy who’s necessarily going to admit that some of his facts are wrong; it’ll be left to other sources to gradually come to these conclusions over time. Once the initial impact of the book settles, we’re going to be left to assess the accuracy of these claims and the concern is that Wolff will become one of the new faces of American journalism - and that’s bad.
This is wonderful.