You said something stupid and easily-refutable, and you “knew” that I’d point out that it was stupid and easily-refutable? Bravo. Well done. Really, great job there.
And now you’re trying to move the goalposts. Keep up the good work.
Same question to you as I asked the OP. What recent speech have you seen that most clearly suggested dementia to you?
…LOL. Then refute it already. Post the twitter posts.
Thank you.
Goal posts haven’t moved. We are in fucking IMHO. We aren’t having a Great Debate.
Trump:Statesman indeed.
I don’t see how anyone can claim to be patriotic when they don’t have a problem with the head of state they helped elect being such a clueless dink.
If you don’t follow the news, we can’t really help you.
You think quoting yourself claiming that I don’t follow the news is evidence of something other than that you know how the quote function works? What’s next “go Google it”?
Here is one. Stupid “fact” refuted, agreed?
…aren’t you supposed to be “easily refuting” me? Where are the tweets?
For the record I don’t watch his speeches, because I don’t hate myself, but I hear that he recently claimed not to know Wikileaks existed, which can be explained away many ways but every single way requires us to believe that Trump has one form of mental damage or another, crippling senility being the most charitable possible assumption.
But this is all beside the point. Taking the consensus we’ve reached, which is that Trump is stupid and insane, is there any chance that his stupidity and insanity could manifest in a way that results in a ‘Jim Jones’ situation?
My thinking is that the only such outcome that’s even remotely likely (that is, an outcome where he gets himself and/or a bunch of his followers killed through suicidal actions) would be if he announces that the political event that boots him from office (impeachment or losing re-election) is illegitimate, calls it an illegal attempt to oust him from office, and demands that his MAGAts come defend him from ousting with as many guns as they can carry. At which point a percentage of them comply, attempt to occupy the white house, and learn that the military is both not amused and better armed than they are, resulting in some portion of his rallied followers getting killed. The only way Trump is imperiled in this situation is if they somehow get close to him and he gets caught in the crossfire, or if he somehow gets caught up in the situation and grabs a gun and shoots at the military too.
Again, I don’t think that this is likely - he’s going to choke on a hamburger long before his term ends politically. But if he was going to ‘go Jim Jones’, this is the only way I can imagine up that it could possibly happen.
…that was posted an HOUR ago. Anything after the President posted doesn’t count.
Only last week he said “oranges” three times instead of “origins”, and also said his father was born in Germany, when he was born in New York.
Here’s the Wikileaks Q&A. It’s not exactly claiming “not to know Wikileaks existed”, but you don’t watch his speeches either, so, while I appreciate your candor, I’m not sure I’ll be placing a lot of value in your opinion about his mental health.
That word may not mean what you think it means.
The lengths that some will go to in order to defend the indefensible, and rationalize the irrational, is both sad and amusing.
Why in the hell would that “not count”? Your claim was:
Nothing there says anything about President Trump being first. You claimed he was the only one to suggest it (“only a single person …”). Of course it counts.
Do you have a link to a video of the speech? Or did the word “oranges” appear in the text of a speech? If so, again, is there a link?
If we’re going for candor, let’s just admit you never put any value in ANY opinion about Trump’s mental health that doesn’t already align with your own.
So much for my attempt to drag this thread back on topic.
From what I’ve seen, pretty much all of those opinions come from people that either don’t have any medical experience, or have not interacted with President Trump in any way that would provide them an opportunity for a real diagnosis, or both. Yeah, you’re pretty much spot on that I never put any value in those opinions.
…that wasn’t my claim actually.
See the bolded bit?
That gives the bit you quoted context.
Out of a couple of hundred comments that I scrolled through about the fire only a single person made a call for sending in the tankers.
In order to refute that: you would have to review the couple of hundred comments that I scrolled through to find counter-examples. As you have zero access to my brain: I highly doubt that you will be able to do so.
As I said: predictable. I worded my post carefully. And you did exactly as I expected you to do. I hope you had fun using the twitter search algorithm.
Here’s the education lesson for you.
Twitter is infested with bots and political activists who signal boost things the President of the United States says for political gain. So it is to be expected that 3 hours after the President’s comment there will be twitter accounts posting things that are either in support of or repeating the messaging coming from the White House. A twitter account with 29 followers that posts stuff like:
and
and
is very likely to post in exclusive support of the Presidents messaging. No matter what the President says. Quoting obvious propaganda does not refute what I said.
It is unlikely this particular twitter account would have posted in support of “flying tankers” if it weren’t for the fact that the President had posted about it a few hours earlier.
But none of that matters, because this post wasn’t one of the ones I scrolled through on twitter, so this doesn’t refute anything I said.
I don’t think you worded it half-as-carefully as you seem to think so, nor carefully enough to make your claim what you think it is. For anyone interested, here is the whole paragraph from the post:
Your interesting informational tidbit about how many comments you scrolled through does not modify the claim you make in the penultimate sentence. It reads to me like:
‘Do you know how many people on twitter suggested it? I did a half-assed search and I could only find one.’
“well, here’s another one” is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal to your lone “fact”.