Puerto Rico: Trump lashes out at San Juan mayor - Polidicks

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52737523] Why would the PR officer call a New York based radio station, every single radio and news station, especially Puerto Rican ones, would fucking order her a military armored transport if she could prove her credentials. Why can this not be found in any alternative recording of the broadcast? If this was actually broadcasted in NY of all places, people would be recording it on their phones just like that guy is. Why doesn't she name any details other than what is google-able? Why is she calling from Guaynabo? I get that she as a cop is mobile but it calls into question whether she has first hand knowledge of this or is just repeating what other people heard, which makes this a reported hearsay of a rumor. There's a reason why (quality) news agencies require at the very least two independent first hand reports of an event before reporting it, when this is one THIRD hand report of questionable veracity and quality.[/QUOTE] This is a good, reasoned response [QUOTE=EcksDee] You don't get to just drop conspiracy bullshit into a thread claiming you're so impartial and are just open minded. Use half a percentage of your brain to see that this is retarded and don't post it. This is like if you went into the Neo Nazi rally in Sweden thread and posted some Breitbart article on how the Government of Nigeria funded the rally or some stupid shit like that. [/QUOTE] This is false equivalence.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737538]This is a good, reasoned response This is false equivalence.[/QUOTE] Your video is as equally unsubstantiated as his example claim.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737538] This is false equivalence.[/QUOTE] No, it's a direct equivalence. You literally did the exact same thing but with what is in essence a political hostage situation conspiracy (the hostage being food and aid).

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737508]Why is the conclusion illegitimate? Who is the authority that has decided that the video contains nothing of any possible value? Face the facts. Most people in this thread have decided the truth for themselves.[/QUOTE] Do you not know how credibility works? Do you not know how truth works? A source being unreliable is perfectly legitimate grounds to dismiss presented evidence. If a homeless man rambling on the side of the street claims the local government is controlled by lizard people, I don't need to examine the DNA of everyone in the mayoral office to refute his point.

[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52737525] ph:lxyz posted: It's the moderators' job to decide whether it adds to the conversation. Or maybe the conversation didn't go the way that the thread was pointing. I assume that's permissible, however. Or at least one would hope that it is allowed... I forgot I was supposed to be condeming Trump, since that's what this thread is actually for then, right? Edited: Did I tell you to accept it at face value? Did I call anyone here gullible? Examine your objectivity. ph:lxyz posted: Maybe I'm overestimating the level of maturity of a lot of the politically experienced kids here to be able to converse in a civilized manner. [/QUOTE] Read each line. It looks like your interpretation of what I said was based on emotion and not on fact. Where in the line am I calling someone gullible? Where am I asking it to be accepted at face value? The words are written [b]right there[/b] so you can see for yourself that it is [b]not the case[/b]. I'm going to work.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737508] [B]Why is the conclusion illegitimate? [/B]Who is the authority that has decided that the video contains nothing of any possible value? Face the facts. Most people in this thread have decided the truth for themselves.[/QUOTE] THIS IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF That bolded part is [B]EXACTLY what you have to show.[/B]

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737550]Read each line. It looks like your interpretation of what I said was based on emotion and not on fact. Where in the line am I calling someone gullible? Where am I asking it to be accepted at face value? The words are written [b]right there[/b] so you can see for yourself that it is [b]not the case[/b]. I'm going to work.[/QUOTE] You demanded that people refute the points in the video, in spite of people pointing out that the sources are unreliable all the while calling everyone that didn't give an in depth analysis of a conspiracy video immature. The video was not of interest to the topic because it's from an unreliable source that pushes conspiracy bullshit, this isn't hard.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737550]Read each line. It looks like your interpretation of what I said was based on emotion and not on fact. Where in the line am I calling someone gullible? Where am I asking it to be accepted at face value? The words are written [b]right there[/b] so you can see for yourself that it is [b]not the case[/b]. I'm going to work.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=YOMIURA;52737525]Because users on this forum call an unsubstantiated mess an unsubstantiated mess, you call them children. Examine your own logic.[/QUOTE] Your video you posted is completely unsubstantiated, has no basis in any kind of evidence, is published by a conflict of interest who are known to lie ithis way time before, and in much more simple words by other users is pointed out. Your response is to call them children, insinuate the rest of the forum is here to mindlessly attack Trump, appeal to the rules and moderators. All to avoid saying the video you posted was not useful in any way, or sustantiate the claim of the video you posted. [quote]It looks like your interpretation of what I said was based on emotion and not on fact.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52735496]I can't decide if the mayor was in the wrong or not... But it's still insane to me that the president decides to publicly condemn a mayor from the same country on an international platform following said mayor's city being ravaged by a hurricane. Shouldn't the president maybe think [I]"okay, she's probably distressed and not thinking straight, I should be the unifying force here"[/I]? Instead, frail baby Donald as always decides to take it personally and cause division and conflict while blaming 'the democrats' with a vague conspiracy theory. Even if it was necessary to call her out, there's hardly any worse ways to word it than how he did. I mean, Mulvaney said practically the same thing only a thousand times better than Trump. [I]"It is unfortunate that the San Juan mayor wants to sort of go against the grain. We’d love to have her on the team as we all pull in the same direction."[/I] One would think that he could put a little more effort into writing his tweet compared to someone speaking it on the fly. Funny enough Mulvaney's statement almost fits in one tweet too, while Trump's rant had to fit into 3.[/QUOTE] Remember, this is someone who said America isn't all that good and innocent when asked about Putin killing journalists/people. Honestly, I just gave up being surprised and wondering if there is a new low for this piece of shit.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52737446] Instead of namecalling[/quote] [quote]Maybe I'm overestimating the level of maturity of a lot of the politically experienced kids here to be able to converse in a civilized manner.[/quote] Dude, fuck off.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52736567] Just thought this was[B] interesting.[/B][/QUOTE] This is the code word for "I'm gonna drop some obvious bullshit but also play it off as distant observer instead of someone with conviction."