Trump Falsely Claims Obama Didn’t Contact Families of Fallen Soldiers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791345]Great, thanks for really addressing the argument I've presented! "It's obvious" is the best argument I've seen all day! [editline]17th October 2017[/editline] Is "They don't smoke" equivilent to "They've never smoked?" Is "They don't play video games" equivalent to "They've never played video games?" Is "They don't eat carrots" equivalent to "They've never eaten a carrot?" Is "They don't call families" equivalent to "They've never called a family?" If you wouldn't answer "yes" to all of these, then please tell me why the final one is equivalent and the others aren't.[/QUOTE] It's great that you keep bringing up what the reporter said but I don't even agree with the reporters wording. I'm calling Trump a liar on the basis that he is saying this from a place of ignorance. This drooling moron didn't even know he was the president of the virgin islands and he some how knows whether or not 'most presidents made calls'... even though he doesn't know if Obama did or didn't? Ok? So how is he supposed to know if others did or didn't? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with this "Don't/never", because that isn't whats being argued.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791345]Great, thanks for really addressing the argument I've presented! "It's obvious" is the best argument I've seen all day! [editline]17th October 2017[/editline] Is "They don't smoke" equivilent to "They've never smoked?" Is "They don't play video games" equivalent to "They've never played video games?" Is "They don't eat carrots" equivalent to "They've never eaten a carrot?" Is "They don't call families" equivalent to "They've never called a family?" If you wouldn't answer "yes" to all of these, then please tell me why the final one is equivalent and the others aren't.[/QUOTE] Trump lied, slandering the rep of another president to make himself look better. The topic of his lie makes him insensitive as well as having a general lack of integrity. And here you are playing semantics. Yawnsville.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52791369]It's great that you keep bringing up what the reporter said but I don't even agree with the reporters wording. I'm calling Trump a liar on the basis that he is saying this from a place of ignorance. This chuckle-fucking drooling moron didn't even know he was the president of the virgin islands and he some how knows whether or not 'most presidents made calls'. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with this "Don't/never", because that isn't whats being argued.[/QUOTE] Lol, it's what I've been arguing. Have you been reading my posts or just generally responding to some caricature? My point, from the beginning, is that the many articles presenting this as a lie because Obama met a few families are misconstruing the statement. They, like the reporter who asked the question, are presenting his statement as being equivalent to claiming that Obama "never" called any families. That was the focus of my argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791374]Lol, it's what I've been arguing. Have you been reading my posts or just generally responding to some caricature?.[/QUOTE] Responding to your posts IS responding to a caricature. You're selectively blind and, in several threads simultaneously, are trying to obfuscate discussion with semantics and tedium.

I don't understand how there's always this massive definition stretching and hopping and then confusion on why people are reading what the president said exactly as he said. How else are you going to read "most of them didn’t make calls" other than "most of them didn’t make calls"? Like, he said it, out of his own mouth. Going "he meant they made letters instead" is such a lame twist of his words to make him sound less stupid than he is when it's so obvious what he means. I'm tired of the semantics bullshit.

[QUOTE=kariko;52791382]I don't understand how there's always this massive definition stretching and hopping and then confusion on why people are reading what the president said exactly as he said. How else are you going to read "most of them didn’t make calls" other than "most of them didn’t make calls"? Like, he said it, out of his own mouth. Going "he meant they made letters instead" is such a lame twist of his words to make him sound less stupid than he is when it's so obvious what he means. I'm tired of the semantics bullshit.[/QUOTE] For some people, it's all that they have to go on. Sgman right here in this thread is an example of clinging to the smallest bit of semantics or playing the "yeah but they didn't REALLY say that." No matter how much you clarify or show(literally the words out of someone's mouth in this case), they'll still take it to be something else or deem it as irrelevant.

It's kinda sad that people are now hitting the point where Trump is pitiable enough to defend from the shit that comes out of his own mouth. He's not demented, a misunderstood poet or bad at expressing himself, he's just plain stupid, rude and shameless and he doesn't deserve any slack until he comes around to adopting an attitude more fitting of a president and not a spoiled child. It doesn't matter what Trump meant, what matters is what the public understands and if you understand some 4D chess bullshit out of the impulsive, brainless garbage he spews from his mouth every day, then I don't know what to tell you other than you're lying to yourself and you need to cut your losses.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52790819][Media]https://twitter.com/WPLGLocal10/status/920428488989073415[/media] Contact more families please[/QUOTE] this is slightly disingenuous, the full quote is "He knew what he signed up for, but when it happens, it hurts anyway," the fact the tweet cuts that out despite having enough characters left to finish it is kinda silly

if you take sgman and most other posters like him, most of them are dogfucking pedophiles it's just what I've heard said, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't ;) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting AGAIN" - Pascall))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52791513]if you take sgman and most other posters like him, most of them are dogfucking pedophiles it's just what I've heard said, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't ;)[/QUOTE] He didn't say he was. But didn't doesn't mean never, so maybe he was. Since he didn't never say he was; I can only conclude that there was a time where he didn't say he wasn't a paedophile and didn't say he didn't fuck dogs. [editline]18th October 2017[/editline] But is that what he actually meant to say? [editline]18th October 2017[/editline] And just because he meant it does that mean he always meant it?

You just gotta love how one of the praises Tinyhands gets is how he says just what he means, tells it like it is, speaks his mind, and then every other argument about him boils down to "no but what he [I]actually[/I] meant to say was.."

-snip-

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791374]Lol, it's what I've been arguing. Have you been reading my posts or just generally responding to some caricature? My point, from the beginning, is that the many articles presenting this as a lie because Obama met a few families are misconstruing the statement. They, like the reporter who asked the question, are presenting his statement as being equivalent to claiming that Obama "never" called any families. That was the focus of my argument.[/QUOTE] I've made it clear that I'm talking about what he said, not whats being reported, and that the narrative that you wonder about exists for a reason my point is that him bringing something he clearly can't know is him bragging about it in a very dishonest way and its one of many things that shows how bad he is as a speaker. You're allowed to call it whatever you want. I don't care. That isn't my point. What I'm saying is that the 'narrative' exists for a good reason. It exists because he says a lot of stupid shit and brags a lot in a very dishonest way, and that's why people take a lot of things he says as a lie. He didn't know if Obama did or didn't do it yet he brought his name up specifically. That is why I'm calling it dishonest. He backpedaled immediately. This is like saying "Canada and most other countries are third world countries" and then going "Well I don't know if Canada did this or etcetc", the name drop is incredibly dishonest. The dude has an obsession with being better than Obama. His presidency is literally founded on hatred for the dude. He brings him up and uses plain English to shit on him and its obvious. That, and when it comes to taking the media at face value you really shouldn't listen to anything they have to say, they're always dishonest, I'm not going to pretend they are because they are even when they smile in your face. But lets be real here, Trump has always been dishonest himself, and he should be called out on saying dumb shit.

Can we just start treating speaking while the President as if it were constantly speaking under Oath? This fuckin clown wouldn't last 2 days.

[QUOTE=DETrooper;52786547]Most of his supporters probably don't care enough to fact check.[/QUOTE] I've legitimately seen people claim Trump isn't a liar and "just kind of an idiot" and that he doesn't lie any more than any other politician. Same people who said politifact is bullshit because it's got a left bias.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791374]Lol, it's what I've been arguing. Have you been reading my posts or just generally responding to some caricature? My point, from the beginning, is that the many articles presenting this as a lie because Obama met a few families are misconstruing the statement. They, like the reporter who asked the question, are presenting his statement as being equivalent to claiming that Obama "never" called any families. That was the focus of my argument.[/QUOTE] Let us analyze Trump's statement using the only thing that matters: Logic. "If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls." Let's reduce this to: "President Obama, and other presidents, did not make calls (to the families of the fallen)." For simplicity's sake. We can agree that these mean the same thing, yes? Let the set O = {Obama}, OP = Other Presidents. OP consists of at least two presidents that do not include Obama, because the English plural defines a set of more than one element and "other" states that Obama is not an element of this set. The English 'and' functions as a union operator while talking about sets. For instance, if I say I have "nuts and berries", then the set of things that I have consists of all of the elements in the set of nuts that I have, and all of the elements in the set of berries that I have, combined. The English word 'did' functions as something that turns the statement that follows it into a Boolean function, with the input to the function being the noun proceeding it. If I say that " X did all of the chores", that is a statement that is either true or false, and may be written as a logical function such as C(X) which will return true if X did all of the chores and false if X did not do all of the chores. Trump's 'did' is qualified by 'not', which makes the logical statement equal to its contradiction. This means that all of the values that are true become false, and vice versa. Shorthand for this would be ¬C(X), aka "not C(x)" or "X did not do all the chores". Let C(p) be defined as a function that returns true when p has called families of the fallen, and false when they have not. Therefore, if we break Trump's statement down, we get the following: ∀p∈ (O ∪ OP), ¬C(p) (For every element p in the resulting set of the intersection of O and OP, C(p) is false). Trump's statement translates to a logical statement stating directly that Obama did not (ever) call families (and neither did at least 2 other presidents). Just for fun, let's construct a possible contradiction to this and then prove it: I posit that [quote]There exists an element p in the resulting set of the intersection of O and OP where C(p) is true. (∃p∈ (O ∪ OP), C(p))[/quote] If I can prove this, Trump lied. [QUOTE] ∃p∈ (O ∪ OP), C(p) O ⊆ (O ∪ OP) by definition of Union and Subset ∀p∈O, C(p) → ∃p∈ (O ∪ OP) Let 'PO' be the single element in set O C(PO) = true by definition of C ∀p∈O, C(p) = true by exhaustive proof as it is true for all elements in O true → ∃p∈ (O ∪ OP) ∴ ∃p∈ (O ∪ OP) [/QUOTE] Oh wow, that was fast. Contradiction checked out to be true on literally the first thing I checked. I guess that the statement isn't only the stupid statement people were saying it was, it's also a lie. Oh also you're obtuse as fuck

[QUOTE=phygon;52792883] Oh also you're obtuse as fuck[/QUOTE] A recurring trend with Trump supporters/defenders. Must be a weird coincidence, right?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791374]Lol, it's what I've been arguing. Have you been reading my posts or just generally responding to some caricature? My point, from the beginning, is that the many articles presenting this as a lie because Obama met a few families are misconstruing the statement. They, like the reporter who asked the question, are presenting his statement as being equivalent to claiming that Obama "never" called any families. That was the focus of my argument.[/QUOTE] you know people would tend to treat you less harshly in these arguments if you quit acting like you're the "Crowning Achievement" of """Discussion""" In reality you're just a master at Mental Gymnastics.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52791513]if you take sgman and most other posters like him, most of them are dogfucking pedophiles it's just what I've heard said, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't ;) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting AGAIN" - Pascall))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Like his opinions or not, or even think he's outright wrong and judge him for that, that seems to be a bit far at least present an argument along with it

[QUOTE=phygon;52792883] wew lad[/QUOTE] The fact a concept as simple as this had to be thoroughly explained in this much detail is exactly why I can't stand reading Sgman's posts. Being intentionally obtuse is the fucking worst way to debate because you flat out wont convince anyone you are right, just drag out the argument and make yourself look genuinely stupid. It's like, "wow gg you almost convinced me that you are genuinely incapable of understanding something really basic and need to have it explained to you like a child!", what a compelling argument :rolleyes:. I don't want this to come off as some dumb forum callout post, but it's at the point where I will see that little sun avatar and already know the next few posts will involve someone deliberately ignoring some glaring bit of subtext despite having it explained several times over the next couple of pages.

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52791288]Why do you try so hard to present yourself as a neutral third party and yet constantly rush to Trump's defense with these bullshit semantic arguments?[/QUOTE] Been watching too many "Youtube skeptics" videos is my guess, the M.O. of his type of posts and their videos are eerily identical.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52793297]The fact a concept as simple as this had to be thoroughly explained in this much detail is exactly why I can't stand reading Sgman's posts. [/QUOTE] The upside is that if you explain it (rather, prove it) this way, the back-and-forth stops because your argument goes from opinion to tautology

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52793042]A recurring trend with Trump supporters/defenders. Must be a weird coincidence, right?[/QUOTE] I don't think sgman91 is a Trump supporter or a defender

I don't think its been mentioned here but Trump also dragged John Kelly into this by stating that Obama didn't call him when his son died in Afghanistan in 2010. (Kelly attended a breakfast Obama hosted for families of those killed in action six months after he died)

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52793735]I don't think its been mentioned here but Trump also dragged John Kelly into this by stating that Obama didn't call him when his son died in Afghanistan in 2010. (Kelly attended a breakfast Obama hosted for families of those killed in action six months after he died)[/QUOTE] Trump seems to make everything so personal

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52793342]I don't think sgman91 is a Trump supporter or a defender[/QUOTE] How can you say that when his post history proves otherwise?

[QUOTE=kijji;52796092]How can you say that when his post history proves otherwise?[/QUOTE] He's a constitutionalist who tries to be objective at all times. He's mentioned many times before that he dislikes Trump

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52804249]He's a constitutionalist who tries to be objective at all times. He's mentioned many times before that he dislikes Trump[/QUOTE] He fails at that task pretty much constantly though since he argues in a manner basically identical to that of other Trump supporters on the forum and consistently jumps to Trump's defense. One can say they dislike Trump all they want but if their actions run contrary to their claims then it's pretty obvious those claims are bullshit.