Miscellaneous Trump (4 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

DJ, Bird came here first, then I came here, and I brought another with me, she's since drifted off, then Tampa Joe came here, I've know all of those persons on another board, which while being a vigorous board 10 or so years ago with many members diminished down to just a handful.

I've known Bird and Joe for all of those 10 or so years. Keep in mind Joe and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum insofar as politics, but we're also friends with a long association behind us.

We're sure as hell not all "sock puppets." Nor are any of us hooked into a major conspiracy theory. Your theory is a mini conspiracy theory. My advice is knock that off before you become chemically addicted to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are chemically addictive, they induce anger and anxiety, which involves a chemical release in you brain to cope with it, which one can become addicted to in the same way that working out excessively can addict a person to the brain chemicals endorphins and dopamine their body produce during times of stress.

 

[RobF]

And in the constitution those appointed by the president cannot be a representative or a senator. Just like the 1701 Act of Parliament.

Uh huh. And can the President be a representative or a senator?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I’ve got a suspicion that “Send A.I.” is a bot programmed to be a contrarian Trump defender.

I don't think it's a bot, but I do think they are using some chat AI for their fact finding. Chat AI's are not a reliable source of facts and it's a mistake to believe anything that they write is true.

I think what Sendai is doing is running to a chat AI and asking "give me an article that supports Trump's corruption and unconstitutional acts as not be corrupt or unconstitutional and give me a brief summary of how that article supports that." Then they copy the summary and article link from the AI response and post it here, without ever reading the article for themself.

I say that, because every source they've cited as supporting his Trump excusing falsehoods actually contradicts the false excuses they make up. Their articles always contradict the false excuses they make for Trump. My guess is they are using Grok, because Grok is wrong on facts about 94% of the time which damn near being wrong all the time.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I believe A LOT of this board's members are nothing but "sock puppets". I find it very interesting that those members seem to be familiar with each other's participation on other forums.

I second that motion. I wish I could find someone willing to pay me to post what I honestly believe. I'd take their money in a heartbeat and gladly meet their quotas. The problem is they'd have strict guidelines on talking points and homey don't play that.

 

[SamAndreas]

I don't think it's a bot, but I do think they are using some chat AI for their fact finding. Chat AI's are not a reliable source of facts and it's a mistake to believe anything that they write is true.

I think what Sendai is doing is running to a chat AI and asking "give me an article that supports Trump's corruption and unconstitutional acts as not be corrupt or unconstitutional and give me a brief summary of how that article supports that." Then they copy the summary and article link from the AI response and post it here, without ever reading the article for themself.

I say that, because every source they've cited as supporting his Trump excusing falsehoods actually contradicts the false excuses they make up. Their articles always contradict the false excuses they make for Trump. My guess is they are using Grok, because Grok is wrong on facts about 94% of the time which damn near being wrong all the time.

A 94% failure rate is unlikely, a coin toss is 50% and the subject matter we're applying it to make a more than 50% failure rate seemingly unlikely.

What I think you are doing here, following me around making sure you post the same basic argument almost everywhere I go if I happen to use an AI is arguing from authority, a fallacy of logic:

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923, when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made, that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956, scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.

This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so". Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence", and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified or discarded their data to agree with Painter's count.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

We're sure as hell not all "sock puppets."

So you know that some of you are?

Nor are any of us hooked into a major conspiracy theory. Your theory is a mini conspiracy theory. My advice is knock that off before you become chemically addicted to conspiracy theories.

This is really rich coming from the same guy who, just last night, was dead certain that I was lying about a post and was convinced there was no way to create the bullet list on this site, that I most certainly did create on this site. You even made a post which you thought proved that the post I made couldn't be made on this site

Physician, heal thyself and stop preaching to everyone else about the things you yourself do. By the way, that's what projecting actually is and looks like.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Odd that you didn't name anyone, but he felt a need to jump in a defend himself and other posters. Smelt it dealt it and all that. It's just an observation.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

A 94% failure rate is unlikely, a coin toss is 50% and the subject matter we're applying it to make a more than 50% failure rate seemingly unlikely.

That is illogical, un- mathematical and unscientific.

You don't like the results of credible research and analysis done by credible experts in the field, so you dismiss objective facts to hold onto your own alternative facts and reality. That's very Trumpian and MAGA'ish.

What I think you are doing here, following me around making sure you post the same basic argument almost everywhere I go if I happen to use an AI...

I'm not following you around. That's narcissistic thinking on your part. I read everything posted in every thread. You damn skippy that anytime anyone, including you, posts something quoted directly from a chat AI, I point out that credible research and analysis from credible experts have shown that the most factually accurate AI gives out false information 37% of the time and Grok is the worst, giving out false information 94% of the time.

...is arguing from authority...

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority...

I've been sharing quotes and links that discuss the results of research and data analysis conducted by credible experts that objectively shows that chat AI's are factually unreliable. I'm not speaking as authority, I'm sharing scientific knowledge.

On the other hand, you dismiss all of the findings of the experts who have actually conducted research and analysis that followed the scientific method. You are the one engaged in the fallacy of arguing from authority. You are saying that your opinion and very limited experience is superior to the consensus of experts in the field that have conducted research and analysis that reached verifiable conclusions.

You know all this to be true, yet you keep falsely saying it's just my opinion. Why do you keep making false statements about me on this topic? Why do you keep making false statements about the credible and verified research from credible experts in this fields? Do you have a personal stake in AI? Is it because your daughter works in the AI field?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Odd that you didn't name anyone, but he felt a need to jump in a defend himself and other posters. Smelt it dealt it and all that. It's just an observation.

Indeed.

 

[Sendai]

Uh huh. And can the President be a representative or a senator?

No

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

Note “no person holding any office” emphasis on “any”.

 

[SamAndreas]

Odd that you didn't name anyone, but he felt a need to jump in a defend himself and other posters. Smelt it dealt it and all that. It's just an observation.

I felt the need to speak because as my post suggests he's talking about me an the group of people who I came here with, and those who followed me here, well followed Bird, because Bird got here first.

See the deal is LA I'm one of those who goes out of my way to recruit other people to join any board I'm a member of.

 

[MT15]

As expected Trump is refusing to release any more information on Epstein and the DOJ is now denying that a “client list” even exists. Shocker, I know.

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-client-list-trump-administration

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I felt the need to speak because as my post suggests he's talking about me an the group of people who I came here with...

That's your assumption and it may be a correct assumption. You also assumed I'm following you around the board. That's a false assumption. You assumed I lied about having created a post on this site with this site's tools. That's been objectively proven to be a false assumption on your part.

You're more wrong than right in your assumptions that I know of.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

As expected Trump is refusing to release any more information on Epstein and the DOJ is now denying that a “client list” even exists. Shocker, I know.

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-client-list-trump-administration

I hope Musk gets his grubby little paws on that list.

 

[MT15]

Here’s Bondi saying the list (that doesn’t exist now) is sitting on her desk getting ready to be released.

 

[SamAndreas]

 

[RobF]

No

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

Note “no person holding any office” emphasis on “any”.

I already knew that of course. The question was to make clear whether you're going for the bluntly stupid, "The Presidency isn't an Office" argument - and you're not! Well done! - or the also daft, "it is an Office but it's not under the United States" argument - and you're not doing that one either! Bravo! - or the convolutedly stupid:

1) The Founders and the Constitution did regard the Presidency as an Office.
2) And as one under the United States.
3) And like all the other Offices they regarded it as one that shouldn't be occupied by someone also in the legislative branch.
4) But they also thought the holder of the Presidency, unlike other Offices, should be able to take bribes from Kings, Princes, and foreign States.
5) And this thinking is based on the premise that the Presidency, which is an Office, and carries financial advantage, and duties and responsibilities, making it literally an Office of Profit and Trust by definition, is, despite that, not an Office of Profit or Trust.
6) Because Offices have to be appointed, because they were appointed by the King in England.
7) Except not all Offices, because we've already established the Presidency is an Office, and it's elected.
8) So it's just Offices of Profit or Trust that can't be elected.
9) Because, so this argument goes, you can be elected to an Office, just not one that has financial advantage, or duties and responsibilities. Even though the Presidency is an Office which has both those things.
10) Which means "of Profit or Trust" does not mean having financial advantage or duties and responsibilities - because if it did, it would apply to the President - but actually means, "which is not elected."
11) That's the argument.

And you are doing that one. Which is nuts. I mean, by the time you reach 4) anyone should be going, "Ummm, that doesn't sound right," but no, you plough right on to the bit where you're arguing the meaning of "of Profit or Trust" is not, as basic comprehension would suggest, "where one profits or has trust placed in them", but is actually, "where one is not elected."

And you think the writers of the Constitution would not have thought, "Hang on, this is a bit confusing, people might think we don't want the President to be able to be bribed by Kings, Princes, and foreign States, even though we totally do, maybe we should make it explicit that we want the President to be able to take such bribes."

And you think this because you think it was so well known that "Offices of Profit or Trust" didn't mean "Offices where the holder profits or has trust placed in them" but meant "Offices where one is appointed, not elected," that no-one would be confused by this.

Even though that's such clearly bad reasoning it can't even dream of reaching the standard of being specious.

And even though we have a founding father on record saying the exact opposite, and what basic comprehension and reasoning would indicate, that the term "Office of Profit or Trust" did include the President such that the clause was "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments."

And that's your argument.

Dude, your argument sucks.

 

[Heathen]