1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 22, 2025, 12:06:22 AM »

Actually drinking is a legal activity which many adults safely participate in. Hegseth pledged not to drink so that as Secretary of Defense he would be available 24/7:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pete-hegseth-back-scrutiny-grows-misconduct-allegations/story?id=116444894

North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer said he was encouraged by Hegseth's pledge in their private meeting Wednesday to abstain from alcohol as defense secretary.

"He said, 'My commitment is to not touch alcohol while I have this position,'" said Cramer, who lost a son to alcohol addiction in 2018.

"I said, 'It's really important that we have a clear-eyed secretary of defense if the phone rings at 3 in the morning.'" Cramer said. He said Hegseth replied that he would be clear-eyed at "3 in the morning, 3 in the afternoon, and every hour in between."

Cramer said Hegseth told him there were times when he "drank too much, but never times that I drank too much and anything improper happened."

I don't see an issue with this. He wasn't needed around the clock in his previous jobs, but now he is. Hegseth said that in the past he would drink heavily, but never admitted to a drinking problem:

https://www.newsweek.com/everything-pete-hegseth-said-wrote-book-interviews-alcohol-use-pledge-quit-drunk-1995945

"First of all, I've never had a drinking problem," Hegseth said. "No one's ever approached me and said, 'You should really look at getting help for drinking.' Never, never sought counseling, never sought help, but I respect and appreciate people who do. But you know, what do guys do when they come back from war oftentimes? Have some beers. How do you deal with the demons you see on the battlefield? Sometimes it's with a bottle."

...In an August 2021 appearance on The Will Cain Show podcast, Hegseth said: "I'd look around at 10 o'clock and be like, 'What am I going to do today? How about I drink some beers? How about I go have some lunch and have some beers? How about I meet my one or two buddies and have some beers?'"

"And one beer leads to many, leads to self-medication, leads to 'I've earned this.' Like, 'don't tell me I can't,'" he said.

When Cain asked Hegseth if he drank heavily after returning from combat, Hegseth said: "Oh yeah."

And in his book, In the Arena, published in 2016, Hegseth describes how he had once crafted a "pious caricature" of himself, involving abstaining from vices including alcohol, which he admits was often misleading.

He wrote: "I barely trust someone who doesn't enjoy a few drinks and won't drop a well-placed f-bomb."

Hegseth sounds pretty down to earth to me, and more accurately represents a member of the military than a stiff bureaucrat.

I'm not responsible for any dumb or incorrect thing some guy on Twitter said, and I don't need to defend him or otherwise answer for him. You keep trying to push this weird idea that everyone who criticizes Trump is on the same "team," and shares the responsibility whenever one of them makes a mistake.

Considering that there is zero content here from you guys which is actually original, and you are merely copy-pasting from the wider liberal narrative, their mistakes do become your issue. It shows that your worldview is based on these countless little lies and misinterpretations. It also wasn't merely a "guy on twitter". It was an editor-in-chief of a liberal media organization with millions of subscribers, the very organizations being criticized.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 21, 2025, 08:44:49 PM »

The leftist worldview, which you subscribe to, is based on lies. It is constantly contradicted by the truth.

Once you have something more than anonymous sources and poor quality arguments let me know. As it is, these arguments reek of desperation.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 21, 2025, 06:48:27 PM »

Honk, AATW, and Lord Dave apparently have a worldview based on lies.

https://nypost.com/2024/12/04/us-news/trustee-denied-8-years-ago-that-defense-secretary-pick-pete-hegseth-was-ousted-from-veterans-group-over-drinking-misconduct/

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 21, 2025, 05:09:58 PM »

Yes, it's actually a good thing that an unqualified drunk is in charge of the military and regularly shares classified information on unsecured platforms with people who have no security clearance.

This is you and your side on this:

https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-check-hegseth-drinking-nato-press-conference/

Assessing Claims That Pete Hegseth Was Drinking at a Press Conference

Viral images appear to show a brown liquid but higher-definition videos indicate his beverage was clear.

The leftists, who you apparently admire, are saying the most retart things imaginable in complete desperation. Muh liquid is brown is exactly the sort of quality arguments I see from you guys. The above claim of drinking during a press conference comes from the editor-in-chief of a leftist rag, not just any random leftist.

This allegation of drinking is also apparently based on anonymous allegations of seeing him drunk at a bar:

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/pete-hegseth-trump-allegations-history-b2657456.html

Pete Hegseth accused of chanting ‘kill all Muslims’ on a drunken night out

Besides Hegseth drunkenly yelling the hateful Islamophobic chant, a whistelblower report alleged that he had to be stopped from storming a dancers’ stage at a Louisiana strip club.

Even if these anonymous sources were true, it's actually not illegal or unforgivable to get drunk at a bar. Considering that the Pentagon is not a bar, and you have no evidence of him treating it as one, it seems that these anonymous accusations which substitutes proof in your mind, actually proves that this take place in a designated area and that we are safe here.

I can predict your Puritan response on this and, frankly, it's extremely weird how you LARP as pro-prostitution and degeneracy in one post and then you LARP as a 1800's-era Puritan in the next. If you have an actual identity it is obscured by these constant morality LARPs.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 21, 2025, 03:14:03 PM »

The problem here is the poor quality of arguments.

The actual problem is that you are either a troll or, less likely but certainly possible, you’re so deep in the Trump cult that you have managed to convince yourself you see 5 fingers when only 4 are held up.
But even if you have convinced yourself, you don’t convince anyone else.

This is an interesting choice of a comeback, considering that you have an avatar of an internet troll. You come here as the troll you envision yourself to be and post your nonsense from the trolliest of leftist comedy websites, from which you get your knowledge.

The Trump/Johnson "lies" argument is objectively false and silly. The leftist "They lie about everything" argument is geared towards the lowest IQ public who have trouble understanding more complex topics.

We are supposed to believe that they walk around irrationally lying, but when these claims are repeated in a place where they can be challenged we see consistent embarrassment, such as when you guys posted a video clip and told me that Trump thought that magnets stopped working in water and it turned out that he was obviously talking about electromagnets in the full conversation. These examples and subsequent smackdowns have been repeated in this thread over, and over, and over again, and yet you refuse to learn.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/politics/hegseth-second-signal-chat-military-plans/index.html

Whiskeyleaks strikes again!

We covered this already. The Secretary of Defense is second in command of the military and has broad classification and declassification powers. Your argument would be in a much better position if this wasn't the person in charge of classifying and declassifying military information.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: April 20, 2025, 09:33:44 PM »

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 20, 2025, 04:20:05 PM »

I think we just gotta ask ourselves... If a president will lie about something as trivial as his weight and height... What else is he gonna lie about?  How can we trust him?

You’re right.
But the issue is Trump lies endlessly. One side know this and are bemused that he has ended up in power anyway. The other side just don’t care about his endless lies or have somehow deluded themselves in to believing he doesn’t lie. From the other side of the pond it is all a bit baffling. But we had similar with Johnson over here.

The problem here is the poor quality of arguments. Recall this argument you made about Boris Johnson, proudly announcing your "favourite" lie of his. It was poorly researched:

My "favourite" (if that's the right word) Boris example was when he went to a hospital for a photo-op and was accosted by a parent of a patient there. The man lambasted Boris about the lack of resources and for coming to the hospital for a photo-op. Boris denied it and said something along the lines of "there are no press here" in front of the press who were recording the encounter.

Your "favourite" example is actually an embarrassing display of your tendency to assume things which suit you without considering that you might be wrong and that you need to research your positions. Obviously "there are no press here" can mean a lot of things. Namely that they weren't acting as press. It's not too hard to find that this was the case:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-what-did-boris-johnson-mean-when-he-said-there-were-no-press-at-his-hospital-visit

Omar Salem was waiting for his daughter to be treated in a paediatric ward in Whipps Cross hospital in northeast London when he confronted the Prime Minister, saying: “The NHS is being destroyed… it’s being destroyed and now you come here for a press opportunity.”

Mr Johnson replied: “Well actually, there’s no press here.”

Gesticulating at the members of the media standing nearby, Mr Salem said: “What do you mean, there’s no press here? Who are these people?”

Mr Johnson appeared to start an attempted explanation, saying: “They’re… they’re here…” before trailing off.

Who was at the event?

Downing Street invited a photographer and a video crew from the Press Association – the UK’s news agency of record – to the event, as well as a “pool” video crew, consisting of a ​camera operator and broadcast journalist.

The long-established pool system involves the major broadcasters (including ITN, the makers of Channel 4 News) taking it in turns to send cameras and journalists to events that we know about in advance.

Footage shot by the pool camera crew is then made available to other members of the pool for use in their own broadcasts.

Often, the pool team agrees to go to the event on the understanding that a reporter will get the chance to ask questions of politicians like Boris Johnson.

Obviously, if only one reporter attends, that limits the scope of the questions, but the questions aren’t pre-arranged with the government and there’s no restriction on what journalists can ask.

On this occasion, the broadcasters who run the pool were told that they would be able to film Mr Johnson walking around the hospital visit, but no arrangements were made to record an interview the Prime Minister, or ask him questions.

The pool team agreed to go on this understanding. Apart from the Press Association, it appears that no other reporters from newspapers or other news organisations attended.

This may have been what Mr Johnson had in mind when he said there were “no press” at the event.

It wasn't a press event. You were assuming too much. A person who is taking photographs or video in a hospital to document a state visit isn't necessarily acting as "press". The relative of the patient was questioning Johnson about the absurdity of the presence of press at the hospital, but Johnson pointed out that consideration was given. They were not acting as press by agreement.

Johnson's use of "actually" in his response of “Well actually, there’s no press here" suggests that they may seem like press, but are not. This should have prompted additional research on the actual situation rather than just assuming things. Johnson is suggesting that he knows something that the relative didn't know, which an astute investigator should have looked into before embarrassing themselves with false and faulty partisan accusations.

These "lies" seem to hinge on your own intelligence and ability to research and comprehend truth, which puts your assessments into serious question. Considering that you apparently believe every liberal trash article you come across, we can safely dismiss your disreputable claptrap.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 20, 2025, 04:01:48 AM »

Actually I didn't even need to put one character in front of the other, it also works when they are side-by-side. As long as the camera is closer to one character they will be taller. Considering that these are extreme close up pictures, with often more than two subjects in a cropped photo, it stands that it is possible that the camera is closer to one specific person in the shot than another. They will therefore be "taller". 



It is extremely fallacious to take random photographs and make assumptions, especially when your data is contradicted by other photographs, however normal it is for the media to operate in this way. From this exercise I am fairly certain that Trump is within an inch of the height he says he is. My certainty in the lies and ignorance of the liberal media is also reinforced.

Curiously, I note that this is all basically a continuation of humanity's error of Aristotelian logic and science which stems back thousands of years, an erroneous Dark Age practice where you make an observation and just assume it to be true without further investigation, based on your inherent and emotional need to be correct.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 19, 2025, 11:43:51 PM »

Or, you know, slight angle discrepancies causing height effects.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 19, 2025, 06:50:47 PM »

Just stop. It's easy to find pictures of varying heights, in various conditions. Photographs with unknown conditions are not a measurement tool.

Here is Trump towering over Mohamed Ali who is 6'3".





Trump with George Foreman who is 6'4"

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 19, 2025, 05:28:24 PM »

BREAKING NEWS TRUMP GROWS IN HEIGHT OVER THE SPAN OF A FEW MINUTES

Trump is supposed to be 6'3", yet is shorter than Vance who is 6'2".

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/national/politics/2025/02/09/vance-musk-trump-courts-doge

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 19, 2025, 04:01:20 PM »

Nice pivot, I see that the new leftist talking point has been deployed. It is fascinating how the left fixates on Trump's height, as if that is relevant at all to the unprecedented political upheaval and mass demolishment of liberalism occuring. While he's dismantling their cherished DEI initiatives, cutting budgets for their favorite projects, and sending leftist bureaucrats packing, they want to debate how tall he is. Obsessing over the ruler while ignoring the wrecking ball. But hey, as their ideological empire crumbles, at least they'll have an exact measurement of the wrecking ball operator.

Anyway, this argument based on selective pictures isn't really that convincing, considering that the first few results on image search shows versions where they are more similarly statured. Unlike the above, Trump's eye level is not at mouth level in these images:

https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/07/heres-now-trumps-new-vice-presidential-pick-stacks-federal-workforce-issues/398056/



https://www.cbtnews.com/trumps-white-house-return-signals-major-shift-in-ev-policy-trade-and-economic-direction/



https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jd-vance-britain-islamist-state-angela-rayner-trump-vp-t2jd237f8



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/15/arts/jd-vance-trump-hollywood.html

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 13, 2025, 06:01:39 PM »

You are not a mod here so you don't get to tell me what to post or what not to.
The video is relevant to this thread. And of course I looked at it. To say I haven't is an incorrect accusation and ironic from someone who often posts cherry picked quotes from articles which actually say the exact opposite of what the cherry picked quote implies.

I have repeatedly pointed out that your definition of cherry picking includes things like "Yes, he says that the three body problem has issues... but we see on this other page in his book that he thinks that the earth is a sphere!! Cherry picking!!!"

These are retart arguments that a child would come up with, and it is actually you who is cherry picking something and refusing to address the actual argument being discussed. I really wish you would just follow through with your threat of boredom and leave this forum. There are these things called books, where you can learn about subjects without having to interact with people. You can work on your intellectual and emotional development on your own without having to continually embarrass yourself publicly.

An interesting and somewhat baffling response given that this exchange started with a video which juxtaposes one of the lies with the proof that it's a lie. Of course you see not just evidence of it but absolute proof of it. Your response is interesting. You have a cult leader who you believe to be infallible and truthful. You see a video which clearly demonstrates he lies. What do you do with that contradiction? An honest response would be to change your views on the fallibility and honesty of the cult leader. It is interesting that your response is to try and reconcile the lie with the proof that it's a lie by pretending that words don't mean what you know they mean.

Again, the problem here is completely on your part. There are different ways to interpret statements, and you consistency take the most disingenuous and hack partisan approach, from the lowbrow leftist websites you are subscribed to. What you post is mostly trash from the scummiest journalists in media.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 13, 2025, 05:16:12 PM »

I wonder how much the tariffs will affect the price of MAGA merch.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tg8PQzgV4ls?feature=share

The fact that this store even exists owns the libs. I'm not sure why you want to bring it up and remind us that Trump is populist king.

What kind of message is the MAGA leadership sending to their loyal sheeple when their patriotic merch is made in China?  Why doesn't Trump insist that ALL MAGA merch be made in the USA?  To Trump, patriotism is little more than a marketing scam.

Since you argue that more purity in US manufacturing is needed, I see that you agree with Trump in his stance that manufacturing needs to return to the USA. The way the video is presented shows that some items such as basic caps and shirts say Made in USA, but other items such as bomber jackets and mugs and golf hats say made in other countries. This is an accurate representation that some manufacturing exists, and represents a work in progress.

Trump says that there is a lack of manufacturing in the USA, and that this needs to change. I am happy that you looked at this video and agree with him.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 13, 2025, 04:23:37 PM »

I wonder how much the tariffs will affect the price of MAGA merch.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tg8PQzgV4ls?feature=share

The fact that this store even exists owns the libs. I'm not sure why you want to bring it up and remind us that Trump is populist king. Where is the Joe Biden storefront, or the Kamala or Obama store? Do you have the addresses for those? Outside of online gift shops, no commercial physical stores exist for them, or existed even when they were in office.

Considering that overseas goods are often sold for 10-30x the wholesale price, it is possible that even the current 124% tariff on China would barely have an affect on price, or no effect depending on the greed of the intermediary companies. Trump has made a point that some of his items are made overseas by necessity and lack of US manufacturing presence. Increasing amounts of tariffs are the remedy for this. With new factories in the US and modernized automation, it's also possible that a product could be built for cheaper than what traditional Chinese sweatshops could produce, stamping them out for nothing. Electricity and mechanical maintenance on industrial machinery is currently cheaper than overseas manual labor.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 12, 2025, 10:12:44 PM »

"The algorithm" spat it out this morning and I thought it was interesting.

Please stop that. You are continually posting articles and content which you have barely even looked at.

All politicians lie of course, but Trump lies in an interesting way. Boris Johnson is similar in this regard. Him and Trump both lie like a young child does.

I don't see any evidence of this. In the case of Boris Johnson, when we last discussed him in this thread we saw that lies were being made about him. Pete S was sharing a media claim that Johnson hid from reporters in a refrigerator. When we reviewed this, it turned out that he was supposed to go into that warehouse for a state visit, and then came out to do a scheduled interview with reporters. The allegations of running from reporters was from a outlet upset that he walked past them as they were shouting questions for an unscheduled interview. You participated in this conversation and were embarrassed pretty thoroughly.

Based on this and a similar series of fails, I can only conclude that there is very little effort here in distinguishing fact from fiction. You are in no place to make statements on which politician you think is lying.

Before you post and argue anything you need to review it critically as if you were your own opponent. I don't see that this is being done.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 12, 2025, 10:02:35 PM »

Oh and DOGE has tried for reality.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-drastically-drops-doge-112308234.html?guccounter=1

From $2 Trillion to $150 Billion.

From this article:

In a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Musk told Trump the group expected to slash $150 billion from the federal budget over the fiscal year, which runs from the beginning of October 2025 to the end of September 2026.

“I’m excited to announce that we anticipate savings in ’26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion,” Musk told Trump in the meeting. The world's richest man said these cuts "will actually result in better services for the American people."

The article goes on to review the DOGE website, which states and that an estimated $150 billion has been saved so far:

According to DOGE's website, which tracks canceled contracts, grants, and leases and publicly displays a sample, the team has already saved an estimated $150 billion. It's unclear if Musk meant to say the $150 billion was the final goal or just what the team had already found.

Regarding that last sentence, maybe they should have applied some journalistic integrity and cleared up that important piece of information before writing this article, because "we anticipate savings" could mean either 'so far' or 'for the year'. Since the website states the same $150 billion number as the amount which has been already saved, it casts doubt on the allegation that this number is the anticipated savings for the entire year.

Why does the author title the article that the goal was dropped to $150 billion, based on something the author admits that they are unclear about? The above statement says that DOGE has "already saved" $150 billion, but the author of the article doesn't know if $150 billion is the final goal. What kind of writing is this?

The article continues:

The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment, however, an official told the New York Times the $1 trillion figure was still "the goal."

Okay, so if the goal is $1 trillion, how could $150 billion be the goal? Why does the the author think that they can interview officials and get a number, but still put forward a number they are unclear about in the article headline as fact?

This article is poorly written and contradicts itself from one sentence to the next. This is the sort of writing that would get a failing grade in middle school. Oddly, this whole article is based on "I thought a thing" while proceeding to present several pieces of evidence that the thing they thought is wrong.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 11, 2025, 06:08:13 PM »

We really are living in the stupidest timeline

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V8_8xmDlM6A

Why are you posting this? This is from almost a year ago. But I agree with your statement, however. That we are living in the stupidest timeline is evident by a profound lack of comprehension skills employed when posting videos like this.

For example, in this video you posted he says that he didn't say lock her up, as in he did not originate the idea of lock her up. The crowd said it, and he says "lock her up is right" or, when responding to the crowd, "they should lock her up". He is obviously responding to the crowd in those video clip statements.

It wasn't his idea, which is a distinct difference. "I didn't say it" could mean several things here. You want it to mean universally, but Trump's use of it in the interview as support for why he didn't prosecute Hillary shows that he is saying that the idea did not originate with him. Had the idea originated with him, Trump is saying that he would have been more motivated to prosecute Hillary Clinton. A keen use of listening comprehension skills would have detected and understood which use of the phrase is correct.

As another example, you posted this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTwNUl-v57s

lol

Had reasonable comprehension skills been applied to this one would see that the person being interviewed is saying that he approves of tariffs, and that tariffs are a good strategy. His disagreements are about the exact particulars of the tariffs. This opposes the narrative you guys have been arguing that America imposing tariffs on its trading partners is bad in general. You guys did not nitpick about what is a better tarrif percentage to enact or which country is better than others to tariff.

It is almost as if you have been reactively posting videos and articles which align with you politically without critically going through the content at all.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 09, 2025, 10:28:58 PM »

It sounds like Trump is winning to me.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/09/us-news/trump-brags-countries-are-calling-us-up-kissing-my-ass-over-tariffs/

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 09, 2025, 09:22:46 PM »

Didn't you just say how making it lower was good?

Also, this is because he just paused almost all the tariffs.  Why?  If this was the best solutions why stop it when it barely started?

It doesn't really matter to me if the multinationals sink, but it apparently matters a lot to the liberals. Which is weird, because over the few years the liberals have been preaching about the evils of big business, what with "occupy wall street" and "eat the rich".

Trump paused the tariffs for the 75 countries who wanted to negotiate. This is something which you leftists did not account for in all of your bawwing. Trump holds the cards, and ultimate control over the economy. After the pause is finished, it will be more difficult to cause a stock market panic, and the world will simply ease into the tarrif paradigm.

Laughably, leftists were predicting a US Recession, and have now rescinded their predictions.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-calls-us-recession-1257pm-73-minutes-later-rescinds-recession-call