What Did President Trump Do Now?

DwnWthVwls · 02-13-2017, 12:22 PM

Can you clarify then? Because that's all I'm reading from your posts as well.

When an experiment is harmful it's not an experiment anymore?

**Frownland** · 02-13-2017, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiiii

Do you need to get your head checked? Literally nothing you're saying has any indication of you understanding the point I'm trying to make. But oh wait, it's Frownland, so obviously I can't have a point. Surprise.

I don't understand your point. Please make it clearer for me so that I can. Or you can just get mad that I'm trying to have a discussion with you on a discussion forum.

Key · 02-13-2017, 12:57 PM

Unsurprisingly, I have to explain my point since it evidently doesn't seem to mesh well with people that want to argue more than actually read the posts.

I'm not making the argument that if I don't agree with something, it no longer counts as an experiment. My entire point is based on the fact that an experiment stops being an experiment when said experiment succeeds in doing what it was meant to achieve. More specifically, the experiment in question is how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in. If Trump succeeds in doing what he wants, it no longer counts as an experiment since the main goal of the experiment is to see if Trump succeeds. I don't really see how you can pull out of that point that if I don't like it, it stops being an experiment. Each time I've made this point, I've not made any indication to that.

So stop being stupid and actually read the posts before you make assumptions that make no sense.

duga · 02-13-2017, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiiii

Unsurprisingly, I have to explain my point since it evidently doesn't seem to mesh well with people that want to argue more than actually read the posts.

I'm not making the argument that if I don't agree with something, it no longer counts as an experiment. My entire point is based on the fact that an experiment stops being an experiment when said experiment succeeds in doing what it was meant to achieve. More specifically, the experiment in question is how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in. If Trump succeeds in doing what he wants, it no longer counts as an experiment since the main goal of the experiment is to see if Trump succeeds. I don't really see how you can pull out of that point that if I don't like it, it stops being an experiment. Each time I've made this point, I've not made any indication to that.

So stop being stupid and actually read the posts before you make assumptions that make no sense.

The experiment is not "how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in?"...that is just a question. The experiment is electing him president to find that out. And I don't think we've quite gotten to the point where we've answered that question or we can't fight for what we believe in...unanimously upheld stay on "travel ban" as an example.

DwnWthVwls · 02-13-2017, 01:04 PM

You should always explain your point for the sake of clarity. It's nothing to get mad over, you haven't said prior to this post that you thought the experiment was over because it reached a conclusion..

Not long ago Chula and I disagreed about something because the way he was using the word empower and the way I thought about it were different. Once the word was defined we continued on. Don't get upset or aggressive over it.

**Exo** · 02-13-2017, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Don't get upset or aggressive over it.

Are you f*cking kidding me? It's Kiiii.

**Frownland** · 02-13-2017, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiiii

Unsurprisingly, I have to explain my point since it evidently doesn't seem to mesh well with people that want to argue more than actually read the posts.

I'm not making the argument that if I don't agree with something, it no longer counts as an experiment. My entire point is based on the fact that an experiment stops being an experiment when said experiment succeeds in doing what it was meant to achieve. More specifically, the experiment in question is how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in. If Trump succeeds in doing what he wants, it no longer counts as an experiment since the main goal of the experiment is to see if Trump succeeds. I don't really see how you can pull out of that point that if I don't like it, it stops being an experiment. Each time I've made this point, I've not made any indication to that.

So stop being stupid and actually read the posts before you make assumptions that make no sense.

Oh okay, so you're just super wrong then and I'm not misunderstanding anything. Gotcha. Sorry I'm not smart enough to agree with your partisan ass.

The Batlord · 02-13-2017, 01:09 PM

Ki's new avatar is HFW he's getting trolled by Frownland.

Key · 02-13-2017, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

The experiment is not "how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in?"...that is just a question. The experiment is electing him president to find that out. And I don't think we've quite gotten to the point where we've answered that question or we can't fight for what we believe in...unanimously upheld stay on "travel ban" as an example.

That's my point. Jesus christ. I didn't say we were at the point where we can't fight. My point was that it stops being an experiment when what the experiment is attempting to do has to stop attempting to do it. Which I used the example I did to prove that. If Trump starts getting away with what he wants to do, we no longer can treat it like an experiment and consider it something that needs to stop.

What you're saying is basically the same as "murder is an experiment into whether or not the person will kill someone" but when they kill someone, it no longer counts as an experiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

You should always explain your point for the sake of clarity. It's nothing to get mad over, you haven't said prior to this post that you thought the experiment was over because it reached a conclusion..

Not long ago Chula and I disagreed about something because the way he was using the word empower and the way I thought about it were different. Once the word was defined we continued on. Don't get upset or aggressive over it.

My point was really easy to understand without clarity. I was as clear as I could have been. Unsurprising that Frown couldn't understand it.

Anteater · 02-13-2017, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Are you against the ACA and "make wall-street accountable" ventures or just there implementation?

I have mixed feelings about the government getting involved in the insurance business. It's like anything else: some people benefit, others get shafted because they have to bear the cost. There are lots of people in their early twenties paying hundreds of dollars a month even as single payers, but their deductibles are so high that they would have been better off with a wider pool of choices pre-ACA. Or, if you asked them straight out, most of them would rather not get health insurance at all because it's such a financial liability. The bar is way higher now for your average business if they want to provide specific types of coverage for their employees cost-effectively.

As for Wall-Street...I think Obama and Eric Holder needed to penalize executives and companies like Goldman Sachs but at the end of the day they didn't have the balls to do it. Thus you have stories that came out later about
these guys getting big bonuses in 2010 and laughing all the way to Bank Of America.

I'm Libertarian and centrist in regards to most issues, but I lean conservative in regards to my views on excessive bureaucracy in government. I'd also love to see the incompetent IRS replaced by a more efficient tax code.

Someone told me at an event yesterday that they thought Mark Cuban would run in 2020. If I were going to put a billionaire in the POTUS seat, I think Cuban would have been a bit higher on my list than Trump.

02-13-2017, 12:57 PM	#2183 (permalink)
Key . Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 13,153	Unsurprisingly, I have to explain my point since it evidently doesn't seem to mesh well with people that want to argue more than actually read the posts. I'm not making the argument that if I don't agree with something, it no longer counts as an experiment. My entire point is based on the fact that an experiment stops being an experiment when said experiment succeeds in doing what it was meant to achieve. More specifically, the experiment in question is how long will it take until Trump really does something so ridiculous that the country can no longer fight for what they believe in. If Trump succeeds in doing what he wants, it no longer counts as an experiment since the main goal of the experiment is to see if Trump succeeds. I don't really see how you can pull out of that point that if I don't like it, it stops being an experiment. Each time I've made this point, I've not made any indication to that. So stop being stupid and actually read the posts before you make assumptions that make no sense.