a reply to: thepixelpusher
I thought I was having a civil discussion where we both discuss our viewpoints and evidence, but apparently DJW001 is offended or doesn't
understand I value all opinions. I may strongly disagree, but I will hear everyone out and read their replies. I would hope in the end we could say we
are all ATS'ers and share a common desire to voice our opinions. I'd hope that is the common ground we all share. Spirited, but civil debate.
Seriously? Let's have a quick recap, shall we? I point out:
"It could take years to unwind his holdings, making him vulnerable to investigation after investigation."
This is a statement of fact. I follow it with an opinion, based on evidence presented earlier:
"Not only is he a Russian puppet, he is also a CIA puppet, and a puppet of the Republican establishment which controls Congress and can order
investigations of his business dealings if he doesn't tow the line!"
Your response was to flip it around onto Clinton (fair enough) but you had to add MAGA. Why? No matter, it was at least a reasonable reply.
On the other hand, a fellow Trump supporter replied:
"Won't happen, because only idiots think he would be."
Do you consider that to be "civil debate?" I then point out that "Trump is the President Elect and his house is not in order. He has essentially
confessed to fraud in the Trump University case, he has had foreign diplomats pay for staying at his Post Office hotel, and he had a private phone
call with the President of Argentina, where a hotel project of his has been held up by red tape."
"Hillary is over. It's Trump's crimes we have to investigate now."
"...sexual harassment, conflict of interest, and a $25,000,000 admission of fraud... "
As a response, do you point out that he has no conflicts of interest? No, because you can't. It's a fact that he has conflict of interests. Do you
point out that he has never been found guilty of sexual harassment in court? No, because Trump is notorious for settlements that include
non-disclosure agreements. The Trump University case? Would you settle for $25 million if you were an innocent man of principle? What was your
"You really need to take your medicine. You are exaggerating reality. Seriously, seek medical attention."
I then asked you if you were okay with rape, redlining, and fraud. You challenged me to provide evidence, followed by a lengthy assault on my
character. I responded with a simple list of the lawsuits that have found Trump guilty of wrongdoing:
You completely ignore that post and call me delusional. You then make a series of claims about what Trump will do without presenting any evidence. I
respond that "your faith in Trump is as delusional as your fantasies about jailing Hillary. Trump has said that he is not going to prosecute Hillary
after all. He has also said he is not going to eliminate "Obamacare" and may honor or climate change treaties. As for TPP, enough Congresspeople favor
it to overturn his veto once they submit and pass it themselves. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation has admitted that they have used their funds
illegally." I support this statement with a link to
the Wall Street Journal.
Once again you ignore the facts I present and try to deny that you ever said that Trump would jail Hillary. You then resort to insults again:
Sounds like you are already biased and intolerant and hateful.
You should probably re-read my response to that in its entirety:
That seems to have touched a nerve, because you started with accusations that I lack reading comprehension!
You then try to split hairs and
claim that you meant "the appropriate authorities" would do it. When I pointed out that the "appropriate authorities" have already investigated, and
that Trump has a long history of breaking contracts, all you could say was that you look forward to me being wrong again. You then post a meme of
Trump on the cover of Newsweek. Why? I know he is the President Elect. Did you think it would hurt my feelings?
You then started on your habit of referring to yourself as wise, and urging me to "learn" from you.
Was that civil discourse, or arrogance and condescension? Judge for yourself.
There was then some byplay in which you accused people who do not approve of Trump as being "delusional" and their behavior as "psychotic." Civil
Earlier, another member equated popularity with good character. I pointed out that both Obama and Hitler won elections. Your response?
The majority of Americans must like Trumps character, he won the Presidency. The majority of Americans hate Obama so his character, according
to you, must be worthless.
Apparently, it is you who have reading comprehension issues. I pointed out that you have been making increasingly antagonizing posts. I will quote
When it suited you during the campaigns you continuously and constantly antagonized other posters with your comments. Can you really not see
the intolerant antagonizing hateful posts YOU made and continue to make against Trump? Don't project your faults on me. Just because I celebrate my
candidates win doesn't mean I'm either being smug or antagonizing. That's all in your fearful mind....
And YOU continue the unfounded hate filled intolerant slurs still against Trump as if you are a programmed MKUtra robot with bias programed in. I'm
sorry you're having trouble accepting the election, but that is part of life. Seek therapy if you find it overwhelming. There are winners and losers
in life. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can cope. Find a way to accept the election and seek a way to help Make America Great
edit on 28-11-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-11-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)