Gwmayhem wrote:

Except that one has already been debunked Gwmayhem. But to your larger point yes it occurs. (sports note: the Trump story involves tennis player Pam Shriver)


The above quote comes from GWRising on the ACT/SAT thread.  Since this exchange is moving away from this subject, I've started a new thread called All Things Political and perhaps beating Barry to the punch, I am setting it up in the Rewind section of the board.

For background, I referenced Mary Trump's account of how our president paid a smart student to take his SAT's for him and the above quote was GWRising's response to this.  He also provided two articles about this.  And so, here is my response to this.

First, I fully recognize that Mary Trump could be fabricating this story.  On the one hand, she would have an awful lot to lose by doing so.  Not only is she slandering her uncle if in fact this were a lie, but she has brought in another name (Pam Shriver's deceased husband as you point out) which truly might not sit well if this were a lie.  There seems to be so much truth in this book that it does not appear as if Mary has a need to lie at all.  I suspect that if the book were filled with lies, her uncle who famously has sued throughout his life would have filed the papers by now.  I also recognize that the burden of proof to win such a lawsuit would be difficult.  How can any of us prove that we took our own SAT's?

And I think that this represents a fundamental difference between the two sides.  While I think that Trump did pay someone to take his SAT's, because it's such a typecast Trumpian thing to do, I will allow for the possibility that this may not have happened.  Trumpers only see the side of defending Trump and allow for zero possibility that they can be wrong.  They use words like "debunk", say, that was the word you used.   Meaning something has been proven to be false.  So let's look at the proof you've provided.

First,. Pam Shriver.  Pam has flat out said that she can not definitively rule out the fact that this could have happened.   She doesn't think it happened, feels that her deceased husband would never have agreed to such a thing (though she did not know him at this point in his life), etc.  She specifically says that she will not go so far as to refute the claim.  That in and of itself ought to be enough to stay away from words like debunked.

As for the other article, this one stretches the limits of imagination.  A former classmate comes forward and says that Trump definitely took his own exam because we would have known it if he wasn't there.  Really?  100 people taking the exam at the same time and this guy would know if even one student was absent?  And he recalls this roughly 55 years later?  I am sure that this gentlemen believes that Trump took his own exam but is this legitimate enough to debunk Mary Trump's account?  Hardly.

It is baffling to me, GWRising, that you go to great lengths to defend this guy.  Some Republicans were opposed to this experiment from Day 1, others have seen enough and are now committed to helping Biden get elected.  Maybe you don't see it this way, but in my mind, it's entirely feasible to respect, even revere the principles and policies of the Republican party while at the same time, detest the attitudes, bigotry and complete lack of aptitude and leadership of Trump.  I know you once said that you don't love everything he does (the tweets as an example) but I'm at a loss as to why you respect anything about him at all.  What's worked?  What's been good?  The stock market he inherited and managed to grow?  He takes full credit for this while absolving zero blame whatsoever when the market crashed.  As for the rest of the economy, spare me?  The jobs that are back are largely retail and restaurant jobs that everyone knew were coming back once these establishments opened again.  Meanwhile, there is an alarmingly high number of jobs that are not expected to ever come back according to many sources.  

I could go on and on but I'll stop here.

   

Very clever Gwmayhem. You bring up Trump's SAT and then imply that it was me that took this off into the political world when I responded to let you know there are facts otherwise. And to that point, Shapiro never met Trump until his junior year of college. Did you take your SAT in your junior year of college? Trump went to Fordham before he transferred to Penn. Mary Trump is pissed because she believes that Donald fleeced her by taking the more favorable assets out of her grandfather's estate. Is that true? I have no idea but that is the claim. You at least have to acknowledge that she is potentially very biased. Also, if she knew all this which presumably happened years before Trump ran for the Presidency, why did she wait to tell us all now? She waited because she wanted to make money off of the book which would be more lucrative once Donald became President. In a way she is acting just like a Trump according to you.

Further, why must one like everything about Trump to acknowledge anything positive? Clearly, up until COVID-19 hit the economy was humming along. He got us out of a very bad deal with Iran. Renegotiated NAFTA to much better terms. Provided budgeting to rebuild our military which had been decimated. Put conservatives on the Supreme Court who will interpret laws as they are written not as they wish they were written. Passed major prison reform. Can I like those things but not be supportive of his tweets or certain statements about things like women or Charlottesville, DACA, or confederate flags? Can I only blame him in part for the failed COVID-19 response (with some of the blame going to the experts and governors or do they get zero blame)? Is a nuanced approach ok with you? Trying parsing the difference between Orange Man Very Bad and Trump Forever on each issue and it will show you that each side has its points.

 

Gwmayhem wrote:

GWRising, admittedly, I should have stuck to my original point and not have strayed to a referendum on Trump.  There is no point to debating what you feel are Trump's viable accomplishments.  The voters will have their say in November.  My original point was taking exception to your use of the word debunked.  I interpret the use of this word to mean proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt and clearly, your two examples do not fall under this category.  I know you take exception to generalizations but I do find that this relatively minor example represents a fundamental difference between the two parties.

I think most democrats likely believe Mary Trump's SAT story while acknowledging that there is a distinct possibility that this has been either embellished or fabricated.  I think most republicans believe that the SAT story is a lie, and there isn't even the slightest possibility of it being true.  It's interesting to me that one of your original political arguments concerned the lack of nuance exhibited in political discussions (i.e. why can't you like Trump's policies but dislike some of the things he says and does?).  I do feel you are the exception to the rule within your own party, or put another way, that democrats are more likely to show open-mindedness and apply nuanced thinking on most issues than are republicans.  Then again, I am willing to guess that you feel just the opposite is true.    

Two things and then I will drop it. You would agree that if Trump first met Shapiro at Penn (we have zero evidence otherwise, no one else has stepped forward to counter this, and a statement from one person (Pam Shriver) who acknowledges this is the case), Trump didn't go there until his junior year (verified), and Mary Trump specifically identified Shapiro as the one who took his test for him (verified), that is about as debunked as you can get. Also consider that Mary Trump wasn't alive at the time and as a result her account is complete hearsay not first hand facts.

That aside, I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

Like many Americans, I have just completed 8 days watching two political conventions.  It should be noted that I really do not consider myself to normally be a politically-motivated person.  I have always tried to vote for the best person which explains why I have crossed party lines on occasion with my vote.  I thought that I might attempt to be tactful with this post but on second thought, why bother?  This Republican convention was about the most shameful display I have ever witnessed.

If this was ever in doubt, make no mistake that it's not enough for our president to have an autocratic management style.  He is doing everything within his power to serve as a dictator.  The White House became White Castle last night (and not the kind with the square burgers).  The president and his family think of themselves as royalty.  The administration acted as a monarchy.  It was disgusting in every sense of the word.

The Washington Post routinely runs a fact checking column.  During the Democratic convention, they cited roughly 3 fact checks per night.  During the Republican convention, that number became 19 until last night.  Yesterday, they point out 30 fact checks of which 23 were by Trump during his speech.  Many represented the same tired lies that Trump has been spewing for a while now.  And lest you think that of course, the liberal rag Washington Post is going to slant its coverage in this manner, I will point out that I'm not talking about op-eds or opinion pieces.  This is a fact-checking article.  And no, despite what the wise sage KelliAnne Conway has to say about it, there's no such things as alternative facts.  There can be alternative ways to interpret facts (politics in a nutshell) but not alternative facts.  You can't say with any credibility that Biden is in favor of defunding the police when he most certainly is not.  You can't say you're fighting to protect those with pre-existing conditions when your administration is asking the Supreme Court to abolish the Affordable Care Act which includes this guarantee.  You can't say that Biden is in favor of extreme late-term abortions when he has never suggested this.  You can't say that the U.S. is energy independent while the U.S. imports millions of barrels of oil each day.

If you listened to that speech and were unaware of the circumstances, you would have thought that Biden is the current president of our downtrodden nation and that Trump must unseat him in order to save the country.

If only people would cast their vote with the person, this would be among the easiest decisions one could ever make. 

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
- Ronald Reagan

Last edited by GWRising (9/04/2020 3:06 pm)

GWRising wrote:

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
- Ronald Reagan

So it's the liberals who are getting things so wrong?  I'd say you have to be going out of your way to be difficult.

Alternatively, we can all sit on our hands, shut the hell up, and watch a dictatorship unfold before our eyes.  And not just any old dictatorship.  One where the guy in charge is an incompetent, racist fool.  Sound good to you GWRising?

Executive orders are really just a small per of this but FWIW, Trump has averaged more per year than any president since Reagan's first term.  Clinton's first term will be close depending on what Trump does between now and the election.

No, I'm prone to look at other metrics.  Like the consistent hiring of "Acting" officials who needn't undergo Congressional approval.  Or the many laws that he has broken because he apparently feels he is above the law, knowing full well that he can't be indicted while serving as president.  Or, his apparent infatuation that he seems to incredulously have with actual dictators (what American would ever in his right mind write to Putin saying that he is a big fan).  It is very hard to argue that this narcissist wants to be a dictator and is doing everything that he can possibly get away with to act like one.  This has nothing to do with whether I like his policies or not.  

You should feel very fortunate that this is an anonymous message board.  It very sadly speaks volumes about whoever you are that you would go to these lengths to defend this criminal.

What I wrote is that your views on Trump and your insistence on defending the words and actions of this criminal speak volumes about you.  And from this, your takeaway is that if your identity were known, someone like me may harm you for exercising your first amendment rights?  

Not even close.  Your first amendment rights are safe and protected.  Nobody ever said or meant otherwise.  This isn't the first time you've mentioned an inconsistency between your feelings about Trump's policies vs. Trump the person.  Just my opinion but each day, it gets increasingly more difficult to accept this level of hypocrisy which I feel this is.  Kind of like Jack the Ripper's friends and family vouching for what a good guy he was.  No, he wasn't.  Generally speaking, people who do good things are good people and vice versa.  Trump is not a bad guy doing good things.  Again, just my opinion.

Thomas wrote:

I completely agree Gwmayhem, and at this point, I'm not even that angry at Trump because we knew that he was an INCOMPOTENT LOWLIFE long before he became President, I'm angry at those who work with him, work for him and speak up for him!! I know this won't happen, but the people who willingly supported and lied for Trump(Kellyanne Conway, Mark Meadows, Kayleigh McEnany, Mitch McConnell, William Barr, Ken Cuccinelli, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Corey Lewandowski, Stephen Miller, Rudy Giuliani, Ron DeSantis, EVERYONE who spoke at the RNC) over these last 4 years should be shunned from society!! I'm assuming most of them will have a 'Come To Jesus/Forgive Me For My Sins' moment whenever Trump leaves office(hopefully this November) and they'll get back into the mainstream, but aiding Trump as he has damaged and weakened the country is just unforgivable!!

Thomas, I feel you've captured it pretty well, except that, even if Trump loses the election, I feel he won't leave peacefully.  And to make matter worse, I feel his supporters (those with most of the weapons and ammunition) will do and say ANYTHING to keep him in power.  That includes cheating in the election, surpressing the vote, lying, threatening, manipulating, intimidating, beating, choking, shooting, killing and lynching people. 

I feel many, if not the majority of the Trump supporters want to cleanse the US of all the black and brown people (and then make sure the Jewish people are "kept in their place").  They already have the weapons and support of the police (see Kenosha and Kyle Rittenhouse), and the National Guard and military police.  Couple that with the spineless sycophants Trump's installed in his cabinet, they also have the backing of a group of quasi-Nazis to support them in their blood-thirsty war against everyone that doesn't look and think like them. 

Last edited by 22ndandF (9/08/2020 8:15 pm)

GWRising, I decided to give it a night's sleep before responding to your outlandish accusation.  So you are aware, I do not threat people period, ones I know, and ones I don't know.

What I meant was that the vast majority of people I know, friends, relatives, business associates, etc., are not Trump supporters.  In fact, we look down upon Trump supporters.  You can cry "elitist" all you want but when you have a president who is so unlawful, disrespectful, and bigoted, I am OK using that phrase to describe anyone who willfully supports that type of person.  It does say something about people who would support this behavior, not his policies, but the actual person himself.  He's gone too far.  I don't see how you can separate the person from his policies.

"I may not like everything he says or does, but I support him" no longer flies in 2020.  His rap sheet is way too long.  In 2016, you could (and likely did) make the case that our political system was broken so let's bring in an outsider to "drain the swamp" and fix things.  I didn't agree with this then (not so much the philosophy but rather Trump himself...I guess I knew too much about him to know he would never be an effective president), but I could at least understand why someone might vote for him (or against Hillary).  Nearly four years later, I can't begin to fathom why anyone would want him re-elected.  He has been ineffective on most issues and has consistently lied to Americans.  He doesn't care what lie he says...by the time he gets questioned about it, he has already moved onto the next lie.  

He's blamed Democrats from day 1.  He's blamed the media from day 1.  He essentially blames anyone and anything that goes against him.  He is a petulant narcissist.  

So my comment about feeling fortunate that this is an anonymous message board was not a threat in any way, shape or form.  It was a commentary that if most here knew you personally, their perceptions of you might change for the worse.  Like I said, it does say something about you that you would consistently defend such a lowlife.  And please don't pretend that you haven't gone to great lengths.  When ever a negative word is written here about our president, your response normally arrives within an hour give or take.

Last point..if this explanation is not satisfactory and you still really believe that I was threatening you in any way, let's please end the conversation.  We may have strong differences of opinion but on this accusation, you could not possibly be more wrong.