The List

[Philo Sofee]

.
We’re almost a year into the Trump Administration’s policies, but they’re not having a positive effect on the Nation’s debt.

At the moment, DOGE’s claim of radical budget cuts and reigning in spending is a failed promise.

I don't see how any rational and honest person aware of those facts can fail to see that Trump and his policies are very largely responsible for that.

Except that Trump wants Biden to be blamed, so it's Biden..... lets not harass the Don too much, he is rather sensitive.

[Whiskey]

That was a quick turnaround. Now Chriatians[sic] are okay?

That is one of the most obtuse comments I have ever seen you post! And yet another example of your penchant for strawman type arguments. I have never claimed that all Christians are bad. Included among those who call themselves Christians are some of the most noble and admirable people on earth (like Talarico) and also some of the most despicable scoundrels who have ever lived. The same is true of many categories of people, and even of Republicans, though of late it seems that the latter kind tend to be dismayingly predominant amongst Republicans -- particularly Trump's MAGA supporters, which is why I am no longer a Republican, and almost certainly never will be again!

Did you even bother to watch any of the video? Probably not, and probably won't, I would guess.

Gunnar, STFU and GTFU. Are you really that effing stupid? You say you are not condemning all Christians, only “some of” Christians. But the structure of what you are doing is still collective judgment first, selective exemption second. That is not nuance. That is stereotyping with an escape hatch. If you said, “I am not talking about all black people, only the bad ones,” after assigning that group sweeping faults and degneratenesses, we would all recognize the move and call it what it is. The disclaimer does not fix the bigotry and prejudice. It just tries to soften it.

Criticize ideas. Criticize actions. Criticize political movements. But stop pretending that sweeping judgments about a religious group became reasonable just because you appended “not all” at the end or because your pal buddies here agree with your prejudice. That move does not cleanse the argument. It just hides the prejudice behind polite and oh so not profane language.

[canpakes]

This looks like a familiar routine:

That is one of the most obtuse comments I have ever seen you post! And yet another example of your penchant for strawman type arguments. I have never claimed that all Christians are bad. Included among those who call themselves Christians are some of the most noble and admirable people on earth (like Talarico) and also some of the most despicable scoundrels who have ever lived. The same is true of many categories of people, and even of Republicans, though of late it seems that the latter kind tend to be dismayingly predominant amongst Republicans -- particularly Trump's MAGA supporters, which is why I am no longer a Republican, and almost certainly never will be again!

Did you even bother to watch any of the video? Probably not, and probably won't, I would guess.

Gunnar, STFU and GTFU. Are you really that effing stupid?

Mostly, when you are completely unable to deal with the content of a post, you make up stupid crap about the poster. It is normal for weak people with weak arguments and few skills. I understand.

. . .

You say you are not condemning all Christians, only “some of” Christians. But the structure of what you are doing is still collective judgment first, selective exemption second. That is not nuance. That is stereotyping with an escape hatch. If you said, “I am not talking about all black people, only the bad ones,” after assigning that group sweeping faults and degneratenesses, we would all recognize the move and call it what it is. The disclaimer does not fix the bigotry and prejudice. It just tries to soften it.

Lacking any evidence of this happening, the snippet below seems to be an appropriate response:

Again? You lying damned retard? Argue with your strawman BS somewhere else you stupid damned retard.

. . .

Criticize ideas. Criticize actions. Criticize political movements. But stop pretending that sweeping judgments about a religious group became reasonable just because you appended “not all” at the end or because your pal buddies here agree with your prejudice. That move does not cleanse the argument. It just hides the prejudice behind polite and oh so not profane language.

Sage advice to follow. You should try it.

[Whiskey]

I have great news, panny.

You still won't be moderating this thread.

[canpakes]

I have great news, panny.

You still won't be moderating this thread.

No worries. I won’t need to, because you’ve been taught to keep within the rules.

Judging by the number of smilies there, this probably frustrates you.

[Whiskey]

As Rachel Maddow has clearly pointed out, there is no longer any ambiguity or doubt that Trump is indeed trying to turn this country into a dictatorship favoring White male, protestant, evangelical extremists.

Whiskey could learn a lot from Rachel if he gave her content a chance. I wonder if he could cite a specific example of horse crap. Let's see some evidence.

Gaddy, you are flipping the burden of proof, or evidence, and pretending that’s argument. Gunnar made an affirmative claim. He asserted that Trump is attempting to establish a dictatorship favoring white male protestant evangelical extremists. He cited a whackacrazy television pundit as authority. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to celebrity and social media and mass media and fakeass news media opinion.

When someone says “that claim is BS,” the burden does not shift to the skeptic to disprove it. The burden remains exactly where it started, on the person making the original claim. This is basic reasoning. Applying your evidence metaphor against my horse crap metaphor, prosecutors present evidence. Defendants are not required to prove innocence before charges are substantiated.

So no, I do not need to “cite examples of horse crap” to reject an unsubstantiated accusation. The accusation itself requires evidence. If Gunnar or Rachel Maddow can produce concrete policies, actions, legal changes, or mechanisms that demonstrate an actual attempt to establish a dictatorship, then we can evaluate them. Until then, this is rhetoric standing in for proof.

Calling something [clear] does not make it true. Repeating it on television does not make it evidence. And demanding that critics disprove a claim that has not been demonstrated is not skepticism. If you want to argue the claim, present evidence. If you cannot, then stop pretending disbelief requires rebuttal. It does not. Rachel Maddow, and Gunnar and you are full of crap, but I can't prove that. It's just a metaphor for saying retarded crap. And yes, a proof is a math thing.

[canpakes]

So no, I do not need to “cite examples of horse crap” to reject an unsubstantiated accusation. The accusation itself requires evidence. If Gunnar or Rachel Maddow can produce concrete policies, actions, legal changes, or mechanisms that demonstrate an actual attempt to establish a dictatorship, then we can evaluate them. Until then, this is rhetoric standing in for proof.

As you state, if a President violates the law then that could qualify as evidence. Even renaming the Kennedy Center becomes an example.

[canpakes]

.
About a year in, Trump’s promise of how he was going to “bring down prices”, and do it fast, hasn’t been realized.

According to the BLS, here’s where inflation stands for key categories:

[canpakes]

Trump ends effort to keep National Guard in Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland

December 31 at 5:14 PM 2025

Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social that troops would return “when crime begins to soar again.” He did not mention a recent Supreme Court order halting his deployment of the National Guard to Chicago with significant implications for their use in other cities.

“We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” he wrote — a claim not backed by data.

Troops remain on the ground in New Orleans and Memphis, with support from state officials, and in Washington, D.C., where the mayor does not have control over the D.C. National Guard

The president’s retreat on the eve of a holiday follows the administration’s setbacks in lawsuits aimed at removing the National Guard from cities in blue states..

- Washington Post

[Jersey Girl]

Trump ends effort to keep National Guard in Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland

December 31 at 5:14 PM 2025

Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social that troops would return “when crime begins to soar again.” He did not mention a recent Supreme Court order halting his deployment of the National Guard to Chicago with significant implications for their use in other cities.

“We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” he wrote — a claim not backed by data.

Troops remain on the ground in New Orleans and Memphis, with support from state officials, and in Washington, D.C., where the mayor does not have control over the D.C. National Guard

The president’s retreat on the eve of a holiday follows the administration’s setbacks in lawsuits aimed at removing the National Guard from cities in blue states..

- Washington Post

Because he LOST in court. Yet another failure on his part.

Trump ends National Guard deployment in 3 cities after Supreme Court loss

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/3 ... t-00708714