patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

Tired of picking on Marcus

Why, he makes it so easy and sets himself up for it?

I'm surprised that any left leaning posters still post here. It must be painful. I wish that there was a fiscally conservative presence on Patnet so I'd feel more at home.

My draw drops at some of the positions Marcus holds and clings to after a long time, but it's fun having him around. I think he's decent, just too trusting that MSM is being truthful and doesn't have an agenda.

Tenpoundbass says

It's just that he like most Democrats refuse to ever call out bad actors. We do so willingly all the time.

LEt me know when you're going to start calling out Trump for his lies. OR when you you're going to start seeing through Brietbarts dishonest bullshit.

Besides, if you paid attention, you'd know that I'm not a fan of the far left SJW types and certainly not those 17 antifa creeps.

But I think it's a provable lie that the left are the most dangerous, or the more violent. Even TPB himself has threatened extreme violence if Trump were to be removed from office. So I find his holier than though bullshit to be about as disingenuous as half of the other stuff he says.

Tenpoundbass says

What about Trump and Russia. Now you think any of them will say they were wrong or there's a possibility they were wrong about Trump and Russia?

Hillary hasn't been indicted for all of her alleged crimes against the country. How come you haven't admitted you're wrong about her ? Have you admitted that it's possible you are wrong ?

SOmehow when it comes to TRump, not having enough proof to indict a sitting President is now proof of innocence ? Why ?

marcus says

Hillary hasn't been indicted YET for all of her alleged crimes against the country.

There, I had to fix that for you.

There's still plenty of time.

Maybe Trump will go after her and all her buddies once this Mueller farce is completed this week.

marcus says

SOmehow when it comes to TRump, not having enough proof to indict a sitting President is now proof of innocence ? Why ?

What about all his family members? How many of them were indicted for Russian collusion? They're not the president.

Hmmmmm....

marcus says

LEt me know when you're going to start calling out Trump for his lies.

Which lies are that?

marcus says

OR when you you're going to start seeing through Brietbarts dishonest bullshit.

Lol Breitbart is kissing cousins w Huffpo. All click bait garbage.

The difference, imo, is that the left today is actively dividing us, calling half the country deplorables, and generally lost in a sea of lies and misguided righteousness.

Therefore Huffpo's lies result in violence and oppression, whereas Breitbart is merely a good laugh.

marcus says

*not having enough* proof to indict a sitting President is now proof of innocence ? Why ?

I think you mean zero evidence isnt enough to indict, which is laughably correct. Your statement smacks of desperation to latch onto the lies you've been sold. Sorry, it's all a lie man. There is zero evidence of collussion w trump. Not even a shred

No see, there was proof that HRC commited crimes, yet somehow those weren't "enough" for Comey to reco indictment.

W Trump, there is no crime. OR, no evidence whatsoever of a crime.

marcus says

not having enough proof to indict a sitting President is now proof of innocence ? Why ?

Because in America you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

MrMagic says

CBOEtrader says

Tired of picking on Marcus

Why, he makes it so easy and sets himself up for it?

He wont engage. He says Trump is a liar, but wont support the assertion.

He wont support any assertion. That's the problem.

I want to find confident, well researched anti-trumpers to give actual criticism of trump. Points that perhaps we'd miss when arguing w "muh racism" idiots.

I've even tried to start the Trump criticisms myself, hoping the reasonable leftists would illuminate the reasonable critiques of our glorious leader.

Nope. Nothing. The anti-trumpers here just link to some fake news article, proclaim their side to be educated and Trump supporters to be deplorable. It's completely devoid of thought, unique or otherwise

CBOEtrader says

He wont engage

Why should I engage with someone that denies Trump is a liar ? I doubt that even FortWayne or TPB would agree with you about TRump not lying. EVen the stupedist TRump Cucks on the planet know he's a pathological liar. Someone has to be a pathological liar themselves do deny Trump's lies.

I always thought you were a decent person. But on the subject of Trump you lose your moral compass or don't have one youif are going to deny his constant lying.

CBOEtrader says

proclaim their side to be educated and Trump supporters to be deplorable. It's completely devoid of thought, unique or otherwise

TRanslation: "Trump is a dirtbag, but he's our dirtbag. We like him."

CBOEtrader says

Your statement smacks of desperation

You're the one with TDS. The other kind of TDS (Trump D Sucker). I'm just a reality based guy, hoping we all make it through this, and it's aftermath.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

proclaim their side to be educated and Trump supporters to be deplorable. It's completely devoid of thought, unique or otherwise

TRanslation: "Trump is a dirtbag, but he's our dirtbag. We like him."

No, my comment was about your teams lack of rationale. Had nothing to do w trump. I am reminded of patricks comment on another thread.

This obvious lack of any rational support, or even a cohesive worldview proves TDS to be about justifying hate. TDS has nothing to do w the rational world.

Ex: @Marcus cant even support his basic assertions, but you sure can call everyone deplorable or uneducated. Narcissism is easy. Rational critique is hard

marcus says

I doubt that even FortWayne or TPB would agree with you about TRump not lying. EVen the stupedist TRump Cucks on the planet know he's a pathological liar. Someone has to be a pathological liar themselves do deny Trump's lies.

Lol, we can see the TDS playing out in front of our eyes. This is an emotional reaction due to brainwashing. You can tell via the use of progressively more extreme verbiage, while completely vacuous of actual content (again).

You literally cant provide one lie to discuss, dude. Give it up.

Dude when are you going to see through the leftist lies of cnn, dailybeast, etc...

Oh that’s right, you like to live in a bubble by putting disagreements on ignore. 20th century bloodshed taught you nothing. Leftist ideology murdered millions.

Don’t care if Trump is honest, just get shit done and I’m happy.

marcus says

Tenpoundbass says

It's just that he like most Democrats refuse to ever call out bad actors. We do so willingly all the time.

LEt me know when you're going to start calling out Trump for his lies. OR when you you're going to start seeing through Brietbarts dishonest bullshit.

Besides, if you paid attention, you'd know that I'm not a fan of the far left SJW types and certainly not those 17 antifa creeps.

But I think it's a provable lie that the left are the most dangerous, or the more violent. Even TPB himself has threatened extreme violence if Trump were to be removed from office. So I find his holier than though bullshit to be about as disingenuous as half of the other stuff he says.

personal

CBOEtrader says

You literally cant provide one lie to discuss

I'll give you two lies, but I'm not interested in discussing them with someone that's perhaps a bigger liar than Trump. (Even Trump knows that honesty isn't his scene).

"WE'RE BUILDING THE WALL."
“We’re building the wall as we speak,” the president said on Fox News in October 2018. “MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL ,” he tweeted on Dec. 13. "We are already building and renovating many miles of Wall, some complete," he tweeted on Christmas Eve.

Two years after campaigning on a promise to build a big, beautiful concrete wall — not a fence — along the nation’s southern border that Mexico would pay for, Trump declared victory, telling Americans that quite a bit of his border wall has been built, the government is building more and that Mexico is paying for it, albeit indirectly. There's just one problem: none of that is true.

He was calling ongoing repair and extension of fences, "building the wall." This bullshit is what triggered Ann Coulter a couple months ago, leading to all the ensuing madness govt shutdown etc. Trump's Precedency really is a shit show in a dumpster fire, or whatever Conway's quote was.

“All Republicans support people with pre-existing conditions, and if they don't, they will after I speak to them," Trump tweeted in October. "I am in total support."

The facts don't back Trump up here.

The Trump administration backed Republican-led states in a lawsuit that claims Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions are illegal, and a federal court ruled the law unconstitutional in December. If the Supreme Court confirms the ruling, insurers would be able to start denying coverage to those people. The White House has not proposed alternative legislation that would offer those with pre-existing conditions the protections Obamacare gives consumers.

Republicans have spent years trying to repeal Obamacare, and the GOP health care bills proposed — and voted on — over the course of the past year would have softened such protections, in some cases allowing insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

marcus says

I'll give you two lies

I appreciate you playing along, bro :)

marcus says

WE'RE BUILDING THE WALL."
“We’re building the wall as we speak,” the president said on Fox News in October 2018. “MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL

This is a good example of taking a misinterpretation and calling that misinterpretation a lie. "We're building the wall" can mean anything involving the process of building the wall. Planning stage, prototype stage, hiring stage, etc... all have to happen before concrete and steal are laid. If you narrowly interpret 140 character tweets, you will continue to find lies where there are none.

Mexico is paying for the wall via better trade deals. At least, that is my understanding of Trumps statement.

Again, you can narrowly interpret whatever you want. A criticism of Trump COULD BE that his communication style allows for interpretation rather than being more specific. In fact, this was one of MY criticisms of Trump on my realistic anti-Trump thread. However, to narrowly interpret someone else's words into a known lie, then to fact check your own interpretation as a lie =>> that's how you fake news, bro.

marcus says

“All Republicans support people with pre-existing conditions, and if they don't, they will after I speak to them," Trump tweeted in October. "I am in total support."

The facts don't back Trump up here.

Which facts? I certainly didnt read the legal filings, and neither did you. If you can find the place or the phrase or even someone representing the legislation in their own words who supports this "the facts dont back trump up here" claim, the please do so.

I've looked, and I cant find it.

What I do find is willful fake news about the individual mandate and expansion of short term medical policies.

BOTH of these changes were fantastic for the consumer! BOTH were great moves that needed to be done. NEITHER of these = removal of pre-exiating clauses. However, you can find fake news articles conflating Trumps removal of individual mandate and expansion of STM with somehow attacking pre-existing clauses. That conflation is fake news.

Unless you can show me where/who/how the states vs ACA suit has a stated goal of removing pre-ex clauses, then this is FAKE NEWS!

0/2 Marcus, but I legit appreciate the effort.

What I expected. As I said, you are perhaps more of a liar than TRump. But don't worry, there are quite a few morons on this forum that eat your bullshit up.

CBOEtrader says

Which facts?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2018/10/08/possible-removal-of-pre-existing-conditions-protections/#6b951dc850e8

marcus says

What I expected. As I said, you are perhaps more of a liar than TRump. But don't worry, there are quite a few morons on this forum that eat your bullshit up.

CBOEtrader says

Which facts?

Right... you literally cant support your own thesis. I have facts which suggest it is fake news. Instead of finding facts which contradict my claim, you instead choose to call me a liar.

Proof positive that you are either unwilling or incapable of supporting your own claims.

personal

I don't think you saw my Forbes link.

THeir game plan: All facts are "fake news"

When I state a fact:

The Trump administration backed Republican-led states in a lawsuit that claims Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions are illegal, and a federal court ruled the law unconstitutional in December. If the Supreme Court confirms the ruling, insurers would be able to start denying coverage to those people. The White House has not proposed alternative legislation that would offer those with pre-existing conditions the protections Obamacare gives consumers.

What I get is a request for further proof.

CBOEtrader says

Mexico is paying for the wall via better trade deals

Apparently the argument here is that if Trump believes one of his his own whoppers, then it's not really a lie. Most of the political lies I didn't choose as examples was for this reason. But his daily small lies are there for everyone to see. They're unimportant. But they speak to his character. What has AMerica become that they're okay with that ? What kind of example is it for children ?

Hey it sometimes takes time to come up with that convoluted bs.

CBOEtrader says

0/2 Marcus, but I legit appreciate the effort.

Classic Republican meme.

What, are they seriously trying to make themselves look stupid ? What does it say that you're comparing Trump to that Bozo ?

Alright you win. Check mate I guess.

Elgatouno says

Cbo, an honest person would not have left out the lawsuit to do away with the ACA. You left that out ... Go figure.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/19/trump-says-he-backs-pre-existing-conditions-coverage-his-actions-say-no.html

Go into that lawsuit and show me where Trump or any state wants to remove the pre-x coverage clause.

marcus says

THeir game plan: All facts are "fake news"

When I state a fact:

The Trump administration backed Republican-led states in a lawsuit that claims Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions are illegal, and a federal court ruled the law unconstitutional in December. If the Supreme Court confirms the ruling, insurers would be able to start denying coverage to those people. The White House has not proposed alternative legislation that would offer those with pre-existing conditions the protections Obamacare gives consumers.

What I get is a request for further proof.

Oh Jesus Marcus. Please be better at basic logic. You teach our children for god's sake.

*The Trump administration backed Republican-led states in a lawsuit that claims Obamacare's protections for pre-existing* . It doesnt say this, nor has anyone suggested it should. This is the fake news.

marcus says

Alright you win. Check mate I guess.

Thanks.

Hopefully next time you look for the underlying fact instead of a fake news writer's lie.

Still waiting for your any support anywhere that pre-x clauses will be removed from the ACA.

marcus says

What does it say that you're comparing Trump to that Bozo ?

Because until five minutes ago, Smollett was a hero of the Left, full of victimhood, a friend of the Obamas, and a shining example of Leftist thought.

Trump still represents his side, but has no indictments unlike the Leftist hero.

Facts: No Republican or Trump has suggested removing the pre-X coverage.

Let's be clear about Marcus's claim.

"“*All Republicans support people with pre-existing conditions, and if they don't, they will after I speak to them, I am in total support.*"

Marcus claims this statement is a lie.

The entirety of the argument is that since Trump is anti ACA, therefore Trump is lying when he says he will keep the good part of ACA.

Elgatouno says

Go into that lawsuit and show me where Trump or any state wants to remove the pre-x coverage clause.

I will after you show me how a pre-x coverage clause survives the killing of the ACA law.

This is so laughably stupid, I honestly dont know how to respond. Trump, and every Republican has told you otherwise.However, because you dont have a copy of this future legislation, they must be lying?

Either you have evidence that suggests Trump actually is doing something opposed to his words, thus lying, or you dont.

You dont.

Elgatouno says

CBOEtrader says

marcus says

Alright you win. Check mate I guess.

Thanks.

Hopefully next time you look for the underlying fact instead of a fake news writer's lie.

Still waiting for your any support anywhere that pre-x clauses will be removed from the ACA.

Lol, still waiting on those "facts" will you be getting those to us soon?

You are saying Trump is lying, not me. It is your job to offer relevant facts to your claim. So far, you havent. So let's try again. Marcus calls trumps tweet a big lie. I have identified exactly where/how Marcus's Forbes article is lying to you. There is no place anywhere the Republicans or trump have suggested or attempted to remove pre-x coverage.

You are effectively asking me to argue agianst Trump being a doo-doo head.

Elgatouno says

CBOEtrader says

Oh Jesus Marcus. Please be better at basic logic. You teach our children for god's sake.

*The Trump administration backed Republican-led states in a lawsuit that claims Obamacare's protections for pre-existing* . It doesnt say this, nor has anyone suggested it should. This is the fake news.

Maybe you didn't know this but if the ACA goes away so does the pre-x coverage clause. Are you trying to say it doesn't go away?

Does your doctor also whither up like the wicked witch of the west? OR maybe there is no reality after the ACA at all. The very molecules of existence will all come undone because Obama's prize child is no longer w us.

The Affordable Care Act is the current governing legal code for our medical industry. If/when it is repealed for good, our righteous overlord Trump will keep the pre-x coverage in whatever act replaces it. Just read his tweet

Elgatouno says

CBOEtrader says

Just read his tweet

I read it and I think he is full of shit.

Of course hes full of shit.

Hes going to try to poke/prod/impulse or whatever to create buzz. Often, ambiguity combined w touchy phrasing equals the absolute best buzz.

Call him a troll sure.

I dont think hes lying. I do think next health insurance act will keep pre-x, and will be almost identically bad in it's own unique Republican way.

marcus says

What, are they seriously trying to make themselves look stupid ? What does it say that you're comparing Trump to that Bozo ?

It says the same people who were pretty sure that



Were the same people who were pretty sure that

MisterLearnToCode says

It says the same people who were pretty sure that

Actually that guy, who's name I don't even know is from a TV show I haven't heard of and don't watch, made a fool of himself and proved he's a douche in a way that blew up in the media when it was learned that he made it all up.

IF you want me to admit that he's an idiot on a par with Trump or even more so, and therefore the comparison has meaning, then okay, whatever. In your world I suppose that somehow makes Trump less of a douchebag. I can't see it.