TakeYouToTasker

You have become completely unhinged. Why are you blindly trusting unaccountable elements of our intel apparatus who have had such a ridiculously shoddy record of truth telling, and a long history of lying and manipulating the American public to their own ends. You're talking about the same agencies who for years used the Playboy Mansion as a honey-potting chamber, protected pedophiles within our own government, and dosed private unsuspecting citizens with mind altering drugs as part of a mind control study to name only a few well documented cases. You're talking about the same group who lied us into war in Iraq, and gave us the Bay of Pigs. For Heaven's sake, the individuals who lied us into Iraq are the exact same ones who are now telling you that US intel services are pure as the driven snow. Can you reconcile any of this?

Given this statement, your analysis of global steel markets is hilarious, given what each of us do for a living. Or does this standard only apply to others?

I think you'd have a good deal of trouble finding a quote of me saying that they aren't engaging in dangerous behavior. In fact, quite the opposite, I've stated many times that we're approaching a point where Civil War may become an inevitability. My contention has always been that freedom is inherently dangerous because it permits people to do and say things we don't like; however for all it's warts it's the only system that protects you when you take action to do or say something others don't like.

I think this is prescient.

I'm going to go on record saying that I'm not comfortable with the idea of euphemizing "pedophilia" into "transgressions".

Eh... She's not completely wrong.

Soooo... What I really need to understand is how globe-tard flat Earth deniers impacted the decision making of "Fake Moses" towards the Zionist conspiracy. Any deep thoughts?

"We all do it" is an absolutely valid response to anyone exhibiting outrage over the situation because it gives the action context, and understanding a thing requires understanding the context in which it exists. People should not be getting outraged over common behavior which all nations engage in as part of the status quo of normal geo-politics. Full stop. Further, the purchase of Facebook adds is incredibly benign in the overall sector of this sort of behavior. Do you believe that American citizens should be prevented by their government from hearing about what people in other nations, and the leaders of other nations, think about our government? If not, why not? If yes, how can a people be considered a free people if their government is permitted to control what information they are allowed to consume?

You believe John Brennan to be credible? On what grounds?

Actually, I'm speaking from a place of knowledge because I bothered to read and understand what has been happening with the global steel industry; along with the President's policy prescriptions to address them, unlike you. The domestic steel industry went into decline for the same reason many of our production industries have, as the US became a debt driven service economy and stopped producing. Over the decades we found ourselves in the untenable position of not having the production capacity to produce a commodity that is vital to our domestic security in ever sense of the word: IE. We have placed a key pillar of our sovereignty and security in the hands of competitor nations who do not have the best interests of the United States on their agenda. To compound the problem, the imported steel is garbage. As such, in order to stimulate our own domestic production, and return to a high quality supply of steel; tariffs are being placed on the nations producing the flawed product, and to those helping them skirt our policies. Again, it would behoove you to actually understand what you're talking about before popping off at the mouth. This is a painfully stupid line of reasoning. You're making it abundantly clear that you don't understand modern geo-politics. What is it that you don't understand about all nations meddling in the elections of all other nations? We do it to others. In fact, we have an entire intel agency whose existence is dedicated to it. Other nations do it to us, including our traditional allies in Germany, England, France, Canada, Australia, and Israel. We do it to our allies as well. It is, quite literally, how the world works. But now, "because Trump", you'd rather engage in overt acts of war with nuclear powers instead of engaging in diplomacy. That's asinine. It's a moronic position that no serious person should entertain. This is an outright fabrication by you. A quick web search will show you no shortage of evidence that you're simply making things up as you go An example: White House Press Briefing, February 20, 2018: "We have spent a lot of time working on cyber security, focusing on protecting the fairness on our elections. And, as I said, the department of homeland security met with state and local officials just over the last several weeks along with election vendors to make sure our election system is secure. They met with state and private officials on how best to secure the election system from foreign interference. We’re not the only targets of foreign interference, and we’re working with our allies on a daily basis to make sure we’re following best practices. This has been a topic of conversation with multiple foreign heads of state. President Trump and the administration [take the stance] that actions that interference in our elections will have consequences. And we’ll continue to impose consequences in response to Russian cyber attacks. Just last week we called out Russia by name, it was one of the first times you’ve seen something like that take place.” Another example was the President's own tweets yesterday. Simply put, you're lying. The sovereign states that we are engaging with in trade wars cannot afford to do so in a protracted manner, where as the United States is in a position where we can. Under the status quo the United States has paid the freight for the entire world for decades while we've simultaneously eroded our own economic base. Your policy preference is what, exactly? Keep bending over, and attend our poorly structured deals which have America subsidizing everyone else at the expense of our citizens? The trade wars will not last forever, and America is bargaining from a position of strength; and will result in better trade deals which benefit Americans and make us more prosperous. This is a bare assertion. I have outlined why the President is engaging in tariff policy. I, myself, am a free trade advocate; but free trade only works when both sides engage in it. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. To remedy the current situation, and bring ourselves to a situation where something closer to free trade is possible, there must be some growing pains. There are no easy paths out of a difficult situation, and the status quo is completely untenable. Tariffs are a lever the President can pull towards those ends, and he is operating under the Constitutional scope of the Executives delegated powers. So we're back to this: Your argument really is that domestic steel production is not a national security concern/issue. Well, that's not really being fair to the concept of arguments, because to date you haven't made one. You pitched a fit, and acted like a two year old; but you haven't explained why steel, which is essential to our national defense, and nearly 100% of our domestic infrastructure including roads, bridges, and our energy grid, along with our capacity to produce and supply food to our population is not a national security concern. You've petulantly denied it all throughout your tantrum, but you haven't explained it. Please do so now. This isn't a coherent sentence, but I think I know what you're trying to communicate, because after engaging with you for as long as I have, I have become fluent in "unrepentant !@#$wit"; so please sit back and enjoy while I "show refute" your muppetry. This is the post I made, to which you responded with your stack of Ben Sasse logical fallacies: To the bolded portion, you responded with this, in your adorable red font: For the reader, you can directly reference the post in question here: @26CornerBlitz You will note that in exactly zero places, ever, at any point did I contend, in your own words "opposition to tariff policy is some liberal idea". Again, that didn't happen. That's an outright fabrication, by you, attempting to cover your ass for some stupid **** you said, which makes you look like the fool that you are. To revisit my prior post: "You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse. I didn't "declare it to be true". I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true. That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold your hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's. Do better." Here's the entirety my contributions to our discussion surrounding your injection of Ben Sasse (edited out non-Sasse related content for the ease of the reader): 1. "I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here. He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are. <snip> As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible? If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion." 2. "This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument. Allow me to help you: You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case. In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise. This was your unsolicited choice. What you left out was why you leveraged his position. With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts. The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions. In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions: reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says. That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious. You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now." 3. "But we aren't talking about political independence. We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument. Which is a logical fallacy. Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is." @26CornerBlitz As the reader can plainly see, there's very much there in the way of detailed explanation; and very little, if any thing at all, in the way of self-congratulations. You must not be familiar with the way message boards work: the things we type and contribute are saved by the message board. I, or anyone else, can go back and read them and see that you're either an idiot, a liar, or both. Ohhh... right, right. Forgive me. The Trumpian party line. Because that's common usage and understanding when someone talks about the concept of "party lines" within the realm of American politics. I'm sure that's exactly what you meant. What with the level of intellectual honesty you've been displaying here, everyone is sure to take you very seriously. Quickly though, what's the "Trumpian party line", who engages with it; and what makes it incorrect? Certainly not your bare assertions that "Trump is a moron". Explain why he's wrong. ALOL Sure you are. Lot's of people laugh while they're getting absolutely battered.

I know Fred. He bleeds Buffalo Bills, but was deeply hurt by the organization when they refused to back his HOF candidacy. He had a HOF career, but Ralph refused to get involved in the politics required by owners to get their players enshrined on his behalf. Fred was offered the opportunity to stay in and around football, his life's passion, by the Patriots organization. Something the Bills never gave him; and he's grateful for that opportunity. To those ends, he understands where his paycheck comes from, and wears the hat. Fred could have been doing this in Buffalo, but the Bills organization failed him.

You've been asked several direct questions, which cut straight to the heart of the matter. The questions have been been delivered in a very civil manner. You're genuinely being asked to opine. 1. What did President Trump surrender? 2. What actions would you like to see our country take in regards to Russia, who has the second most lethal military on the planet, and, is a nuclear powerhouse? A shooting war? Nuclear holocaust? 3. If not, what steps should our President have taken? 4. Why do you not believe we should work to come to peaceful accords with our geo-political advisories? Do you believe mutually assured peace to be a good thing? Is the world more or less safe when we are able to normalize relations with our foes? 5. Should our President be permitted to conduct foreign policy? What were the differences between President Obama meeting privately with the Russian government and President Trump doing the same thing?

Ohhhh... You're back!!!!! Pick me! Pick me!!! Who are Globe-tard Zionists for 500, Alex!

That's not the definition of government.

That's not how this works. You made a fiat declaration that it is bull **** for no other reason than President Trump said it. The case has been made that domestic steel production is a national security issue because our essential systems require top quality steel in order to be both produced and sustained, and because we are currently dependent on the steel production from nations hostile to our interests who have been producing sub-standard steel. It's the exact same argument made in favor of energy independence and agricultural supremacy. If you disagree, make an argument in disagreement. You haven't done so yet. No one here is rationalizing anything. I simply understand how nations behave in the 21st century, and you do not. In addition to this, you keep claiming that the President has not done/is not doing anything about it. This is absolutely untrue. The President has leveraged crippling sanctions, and you don't know that what other steps/actions he has or has not taken toward those ends. You're talking about grave national security concerns involving other nations inner intelligence machinations, and about a desire to preserve peace with other nuclear powers. This isn't steel production which is fine and dandy to debate in the public square. So again, you're wrong, and are making fiat declarations absent evidence. Again, this isn't an argument. The President said what he was going to work to achieve, makes continuous affirmative statements to those ends, and is taking actionable steps towards the completion of those goals. This is all documented and can be sourced. What you are doing, again, is making fiat declarations in place of substance. Feel free to make the case that the President did not say what he wanted to achieve, that he does not make on going statements to that effect, and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals. If you're correct this should be an easy task. But you aren't correct, so you can't; and instead simply dismiss all of this "because Trump reasons", as if your moronic handwavium can disappear facts and reality. I'm still waiting for you to articulate a coherent argument on this front. I won't hold my breath though. But we aren't talking about political independence. We're talking about why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion in a vacuum in place of articulating an argument. Which is a logical fallacy. Speak to why you leveraged Ben Sasse's opinion, other than because he agrees with you on this issue; and why anyone should care what Ben Sasse's opinion is. ... This is so staggeringly stupid that I'm almost lost for words. You introduced at least three documented logical fallacies with your introduction of Ben Sasse. I didn't "declare it to be true". I explained, in pain staking detail, why and how it was true. That you have no foundation in the practice of logic, and cannot readily identify examples fallacies which have been documented, in many cases for centuries, even when I hold your hand and explain them to you is your failing, not mine or anyone else's. Do better. Tell me, what political party do you think I belong to? I mean, surely I must be a member of the alt-right? Everyone is already laughing at you, so why not put the cherry on top. It would not surprise me one bit to learn that most of your intellectual endeavors end up in analingus.

His tweets are the only way he is able to communicate directly with the American people without being truncated and spun by a hostile media. You're asking him to be at the mercy of those whom have openly declared themselves to be his enemy.

Your disbelief that domestic steel production is a matter of national security is a hole you've poked in your own argument. It's not that I have said so, it's that it's self evident, and documented. It's a direct concern in the exact same way energy independence and agricultural supremacy are. If you disagree with this point, I'll leave it to you to explain why domestic steel production is not a national security concern. Point of order: They shouldbe tired, but you are demonstrating that they are necessary. In fact, the way you're prattling on, one would be led to believe that you have exactly zero understanding of how global powers behave in the modern world. Again, I'll now leave it to you to explain how Russia's behavior was different than any other global actor in the last 50 years, including our own, and why most every super power should declare war against us. You've called it "a line", and yet he ran on it, clearly stating his intentions; and now he's acting on it, taking direct steps towards achieving those goals. The only person here presenting evidence is me, and yet here you sit, making empty ad hom attacks in place of anything resembling a coherent argument. My argument is: the President articulated what he was planning to do, continues to do so, and then executes actionable steps towards those goals. Make your counter argument, which would logically have to include that he did not articulate his goals (which he did, and I can source), that he does not continue to do so in an ongoing capacity (which he has, and I can source), and that he is not taking actionable steps towards those goals (which he is, and I can source). Pro-tip: calling the President a moron, and making ugly character attacks by fiat are not a convincing argument. A convincing argument is a convincing argument. If you're incapable of making one, perhaps you should stop trying. This is incorrect, and further demonstrates that you have no idea how to form a coherent argument. Allow me to help you: You leveraged Ben Sasse as an authoritative voice without credential beyond the fact that he held a specific opinion about a specific topic, in order to bolster your case. In doing so you conferred upon him policy expertise. This was your unsolicited choice. What you left out was why you leveraged his position. With this absent, you essentially ordained Ben Sasse an oracle of sorts. The truth is that you used Ben Sasse in this capacity because he agrees with you on this issue, not because you respect Ben Sasse, or his policy positions. In fact, if we were to go down a list of his positions: reform entitlement programs, marriage is between a one man and one woman, opposes common core curriculum, in favor of increased domestic coal production and shale fracking, pro-NRA, pro 2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare, and privatized Social Security; I'm absolutely certain you would label him "a fringe right wing ideologue" who "is a moron, and buys into wing nut BS" in order to discredit anything else he says. That's because you're incapable of making an argument that isn't completely fallacious. You have no idea how far out of your depth you are right now. Perhaps this is what passes for clever on twitter? Again, you haven't demonstrated anything I've said to be incorrect. You've gnashed your teeth, wailed a lot, and called me names; but at the end of the day you're getting your ass kicked. And it's all documented, right here, in black and white (and some of your idiotic red) for everyone to see. Here's my advice to you: Step outside your bubble. Actually take the time to read, and learn how the world works. I mean, I know you won't take it, because you don't strike me as being particularly bright or capable; but I've done my part and can now rest my head soundly on my pillow tonight knowing that I've tried. Now, go ahead and post something else irretrievably stupid, and I'll continue to kick your ass.

This is not accurate. Quick question: do you believe sensitive international diplomacy is best conducted in the tabloids?

Please demonstrate this. Exactly. This isn't rational. It's completely insane.

There are many ways to fight, and our President is fighting. The issue at play is that for the full duration of the prior Administration all foreign policy was weaponized solely for the purpose of domestic political optics. This Administration does not play fast and lose to those ends; but rather seeks to achieve real results, and does so without the benefit of a fawning media., but rather one that is hostile for the sake of being hostile. What you're doing is advocating for nuclear war. Stop and think about that. Who does that benefit? Perhaps you're interested in holding free elections, with no interference from political adds on facebook, in your 30 man colony in a remote fallout shelter?

So, to be clear, your position here is that major concerns which have persisted for a long time shouldn't ever be addressed, because the status quo is to allow major national security threats to fester? I don't believe anyone here, or the President, believes Russia to be anything less than a primary geo-political foe. Such is the reality of a multi-polarist world in which two or more global powers compete for resources in order to best drive their own interests. Russia behaves exactly as you would expect a geo-political foe to behave; which is much in the exact same manner we behave on the global stage. We have intervened and interfered in the elections of nations for decades, and have actively overthrown democratically elected governments. The CIA exists for this singular purpose. In fact, nations we have traditionally considered to be our allies, like Germany, England, France, Australia, and Isreal have done the exact same thing, and worse, yet we continue to have normalized diplomatic relations with them. Do you know why? Because peace, where you can have it on reasonable terms, is far better than nuclear war. You want normalized relations with as many other nations as possible; and when you attempt to normalize relations with nations whom have traditionally been outside that sphere you have to meet with their leaders. Or is your preference open war and hostilities with the second best equipped nuclear power on Earth? I'm not particularly concerned with Ben Sasse's opinion here. He's free to be wrong, just as you are, though it's more beneficial when members of Congress, and others, can get past their own personal bent and work to understand what the driving forces behind policy initiatives are. The President campaigned on putting an end to an geo-political environment where the United States carried the freight for the rest of the world, propping up their managed economies, and supporting their welfare states; all while absorbing their derision. The end goal is a balanced and fair system under which our international partners meet their own responsibilities; and since they were unwilling to do so without prodding due to the domestic policies of their own systems, the Trump Administration is forcing their hand by attacking their policies from America's position of strength. Once this is achieved, there is no reason to persist with tariffs. Europe will blink, as will China (who already has on many fronts), because they have to. As an aside, given your decision to use Ben Sasse's position as a foundational truth to bolster your argument, I can only assume you find the rest of his policy preferences infallible? If not, your logic here is wildly inconsistent, invalidating your opinion. Important for the reader to note: You haven't addressed a single point I've made. I have presented arguments, and you have slandered them with fiat declarations without addressing their merits on a point by point basis. But "you know better", and I'm a "right wing pseudo-intellectual". Here's your chance to demonstrate exactly that: I take the time to examine and address your "argument" point by point, because I can, and I have a stronger case. If you disagree, make your counter argument here. I'm more than happy to slap you around for a few hours.

He's made billions of dollars in the private sector, playing by the same rules everyone else does. He has far more acumen than most anyone else in government and private enterprise. Your characterization of him as anything other than wildly successful is nothing more than standard leftist playbooking: IE anyone who doesn't understand how wise and dynamic liberal policy is, is a moron. Your side of the aisle has been doing this for literally decades. The truth is that you're simply wrong, simple, and mean spirited. And you're losing. Badly. To your earlier response, no, that's not what you were talking about. The board records what you type, and any disagreement by you at this point is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. But even if that was what you were talking about, which it wasn't, and you betrayed with your own words, you're still wrong: Domestic steel production is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a pillar of national security. Nations working to skirt American interests to those ends pose a direct threat to national security to those ends. Tariffs are a corrective slap on the wrist to nations who have done/ are doing this, and are easily reversible once those nations get their houses in order. The fact is that your dislike of President Trump, Republicans, and conservatives has colored your opinion so strongly that you reject wholesale the actual motives of policy drivers from that side of the aisle, and have instead decided to substitute your own warped reality for what is actually happening. Because of this you have invalidated your opinion, and have less than zero credibility in this arena.