Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Immanuel Can]

I simply haven't seen enough evidence to make an informed judgement.

So you have no basis on which to prefer Biden or Clinton to Trump, then. That's what you're saying.

So you have no opinion about the matter. That's fair. I can grant that.

[commonsense]

IC, the way you make stuff up about t and about me makes me wonder if any of your claims and facts are factious. How do you respond? I may be mistaken but I’ll bet you’ll attack others with more whataboutery rather than explain yourself. Feel free to deflect in other ways if you like.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, the way you make stuff up about t and about me...

I'm just taking you at your word, and pointing out the logical conclusion that follows from what you both say.

[tillingborn]

IC, the way you make stuff up about t and about me...

I'm just taking you at your word, and pointing out the logical conclusion that follows from what you both say.

Early on in the current exchange, you set the tone for the invalid leaps that characterise your logic with this:

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault.

Really? I had not heard that Trump had actually done it.

At first I attributed your implication that being accused is being guilty to some mistake on your part. Subsequent posts of yours show that you do not in fact discriminate between accusation and guilt. This is revealing:

You say

All I have heard, up to this point, about Trump in that regard is that he made frat-boy talk.

If that is still true,

It's not. But it's also not terribly relevant anymore. By any account, Trump's indiscretions (which you have elected to dismiss as unproven anyway) are manifestly not worse than the proved allegations against Clinton, or Biden.

Once you became aware of the accusations against Trump, with no apparent critical filter, they became "indiscretions" in your mind. It's a poor use of the word to say I 'dismiss' accusations which are unproven; they remain accusations, I simply don't subscribe to your garden fence, guilty by gossip justice. That clearly irks you:

It's interesting you choose to get all ridiculous and hypocritically high-horse about allegations being unreasonable to consider in selecting a candidate.

What others find ridiculous and high-horse is up to them, but your charge of hypocrisy is based on this:

You believe all the things said about Trump

Again you do not understand the difference between accusation and guilt. I can state that Trump has been accused of sexual assault without assuming he is guilty. You have demonstrated that you cannot.
Perhaps you believe that you are "pointing out the logical conclusion that follows from what you both say", but rather than taking us at our word, you make them up. Your premises are false and your logic is abysmal.

[MagsJ]

-

[Immanuel Can]

Subsequent posts of yours show that you do not in fact discriminate between accusation and guilt.

That's not true. Court judgments are useful. But most of us don't have court judgments before we form opinions about the character of people we meet. You don't. I don't. And in almost no cases, do we form voting opinions by way of court cases.

And this makes sense. Because "guilt" is not a concept that only courts know about. Many things that never get to court are true, factual, and even criminal...but never make it that far. You hate Trump: but he has not been found guilty of anything, save possibly the potty-mouth. But even for that, there was no court-case. Still, you accuse him of things like the Jan. 6th thing, which you mentioned earlier...and you don't have any concern about Clinton's actual confessions, or paying off of litigants.

So this is a lot of clucking and fluffing, with no actual substance.

I can state that Trump has been accused of sexual assault without assuming he is guilty.

There you go! Why state an accusation you are not taking to have any foundation? Are you a gossip?

Don't you "discriminate between accusation and guilt"? Naughty, naughty.

[tillingborn]

Subsequent posts of yours show that you do not in fact discriminate between accusation and guilt.

That's not true.

By your own words, yes it is.

Court judgments are useful. But most of us don't have court judgments before we form opinions about the character of people we meet.

There it is again. It is one thing to have an opinion about someone's character; it is quite another to form beliefs about their behaviour based on those opinions.

You hate Trump

No I don't. You're making things up again, without any evidence.

you accuse him of things like the Jan. 6th thing, which you mentioned earlier...

Yes I mentioned it, but contrary to your confabulations, I did not accuse him of anything. Here are the exact words:

There are events that it's fair to examine: the 2020 election for example and the chaos at the Capitol on January 6 2021. Donald Trump, as president, was a major figure. Bearing in mind that he has not been charged with any wrongdoing, do you think it unreasonable to examine his influence?

and you don't have any concern about Clinton's actual confessions, or paying off of litigants.

No more or less than I have about Trump's 'Grab them by the pussy' comment, or his paying off Stormy Daniels.

I can state that Trump has been accused of sexual assault without assuming he is guilty.

There you go! Why state an accusation you are not taking to have any foundation?

It is a fact that all the men mentioned have been accused of sexual assault. Are you really suggesting that I should only say that if I believe all the accusations?

[Immanuel Can]

It is one thing to have an opinion about someone's character; it is quite another to form beliefs about their behaviour based on those opinions.

So you don't form beliefs about candidates -- or even friends -- unless they've been through a court trial and been found guilty or innocent?

You want me to believe that?

And as for Trump, he's not been through a court over Jan. 6th, or any allegation, or even his rude speech; so you're fine with him.

You also want me to believe that?

Sorry...not buying.

Are you really suggesting that I should only say that if I believe all the accusations?

No...I'm saying you might want to follow your own rules...or not.

[tillingborn]

It is one thing to have an opinion about someone's character; it is quite another to form beliefs about their behaviour based on those opinions.

So you don't form beliefs about candidates -- or even friends -- unless they've been through a court trial and been found guilty or innocent?

You want me to believe that?

As I said, your premises are false and your logic is abysmal. Of course I have beliefs about what my friends might have done; they're my friends. I know something of their character, what they are capable of, and will believe things about them I wasn't a witness to. We are talking about sexual assault; how many of your friends do you believe are capable of that? What sort of evidence would it take for you to believe such an accusation against one of your friends? Suppose the accuser was your wife. Would you defer judgement until the accused was in jail?
I can't count Clinton, Trump or Biden among my friends. From what little I know of their character, there are things I would believe they have done, but for all their incontinent behaviour, I cannot say any of them is a "serial rapist".

And as for Trump, he's not been through a court over Jan. 6th, or any allegation, or even his rude speech; so you're fine with him.

You also want me to believe that?

Sorry...not buying.

What is it about Trump's behaviour that makes you think I cannot be "fine with him"?

Are you really suggesting that I should only say that if I believe all the accusations?

No...I'm saying you might want to follow your own rules...or not.

I am following my own rules. Unlike you, I don't simply believe all accusations are true, as you demonstrated here:

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault.

Really? I had not heard that Trump had actually done it.

If you stop running from that point, you might learn from it.

[mickthinks]

If you stop running from that point, you might learn from it.

tillingborn, I take my hat of to you! But this is Manny you're dealing with, and I am afraid his is a hopeless case of ... let's call it "intellectual dishonesty". I only engage with him these days in order to highlight that dishonesty and let everyone see him for what he is.

That just doesn't happen to me. You must be really fucking smart!

I'd be agreeable too, but cannot believe a word you say! The worst of it is that, you're not honest with yourself.

Yep, that's Manny—fucking smart and thoroughly dishonest!

You may be interested in this brief overview of my interactions with him over the last year:
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... hinks&ch=0

[Immanuel Can]

Of course I have beliefs about what my friends might have done; they're my friends. I know something of their character, what they are capable of, and will believe things about them I wasn't a witness to.

And do you vote? And before you vote, is the thing you consult the court transcript?

And as for Trump, he's not been through a court over Jan. 6th, or any allegation, or even his rude speech; so you're fine with him.

You also want me to believe that?

Sorry...not buying.

What is it about Trump's behaviour that makes you think I cannot be "fine with him"?

Your own claims.

[tillingborn]

And do you vote? And before you vote, is the thing you consult the court transcript?

What you are showing here is petulance.

What is it about Trump's behaviour that makes you think I cannot be "fine with him"?

Your own claims.

Which claims? This is just more deflection. You cannot perceive a difference between accusation and guilt. Have another look:

Both Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault.

Really? I had not heard that Trump had actually done it.

I'm sure it is clear to everyone but you that guilt does not logically follow from accusation. That you think it does is an example of your abysmal logic. Here's the same mistake compounded:

You say:

All I have heard, up to this point, about Trump in that regard is that he made frat-boy talk.

If that is still true,

It's not. But it's also not terribly relevant anymore. By any account, Trump's indiscretions (which you have elected to dismiss as unproven anyway) are manifestly not worse than the proved allegations against Clinton, or Biden.

Once you became aware of the accusations against Trump, with no apparent critical filter, they became "indiscretions" in your mind.

Trump, as well as Biden and Clinton have been accused of many things. Only a fool thinks they are all guilty of everything they have been accused of. You apparently are that fool.

[commonsense]

tillingborn - on behalf of Manny, let me just say you are right about everything you’ve said in this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

And do you vote? And before you vote, is the thing you consult the court transcript?

What you are showing here is petulance.

No. It's a serious question. You say you judge your friends by what you know of their character; but that you don't judge politicians that way.

My question amounts to: then how do you vote? What do you use to judge that you should vote for one man, and not for another? How do you decide that Trump is 'unworthy' of your vote, but Clinton and Biden deserve it?

Please, fill me in on what you do.

[commonsense]

I vote for whomever inspires me more.