To uker med Trump-shutdown

[jjkoggan]

Yes, but when it moves to a total and permanent shutdown of the govt we are no longer discussing the Trump shutdown ... no matter how much I might like that scenario or how much most people are scared shitless of the same.

A total shutdown will eventually occur if Trump hangs in there for a few months.

 

Separately, your constant personal opinions that are irrelevant to the topic are both irritating and distracting because they often derail the debate. You deserve the criticism and should not shirk responsibility by blaming others for reacting to the irrelevant opinions. Also, since you do not reject the underlying premise of many debates (democracy) your contributions on problems/solutions to problems democracies face highly irrelevant.

[Skatteflyktning]

A total shutdown will eventually occur if Trump hangs in there for a few months.

It takes both parties to maintain the shutdown ... unlikely.

 

Separately, your constant personal opinions that are irrelevant to the topic are both irritating and distracting because they often derail the debate. You deserve the criticism and should not shirk responsibility by blaming others for reacting to the irrelevant opinions. Also, since you do not reject the underlying premise of many debates (democracy) your contributions on problems/solutions to problems democracies face highly irrelevant.

Understand the frustration when faced with arguments based on entirely different premises, however that does not invalidate the arguments. Endret 6. januar 2019 av Skatteflyktning

[Svein M]

Shutdown er et fint bevis på at presidenten er ubrukelig. Om de bygger den muren også nå så har vi et monoment over hans ubruklighet for fremtiden også.

[Skatteflyktning]

Shutdown er et fint bevis på at presidenten er ubrukelig.

Hva er forskjellen mellom en brukelig og en ubrukelig president?

[jjkoggan]

It takes both parties to maintain the shutdown ... unlikely.

 

 

No, it will last as long as Trump refuses to sign off, regardless of what the other party does.

[jjkoggan]

Shutdown er et fint bevis på at presidenten er ubrukelig. Om de bygger den muren også nå så har vi et monoment over hans ubruklighet for fremtiden også.

Det beviser stor uenighet mellom oss amerikanere.

[Skatteflyktning]

 

No, it will last as long as Trump refuses to sign off, regardless of what the other party does.

His refusal is conditional on the other party's actions.

[jjkoggan]

 His refusal is conditional on the other party's actions.

He can refuse even if they meet all his demands. The point : he can ensure the shutdown until he is no longer president.

[Skatteflyktning]

He can refuse even if they meet all his demands. The point : he can ensure the shutdown until he is no longer president.

Indeed but that does not seem to be the case, does it?

 

I have seen nothing to indicate that Trump is a Libertarian, have you?

Endret 6. januar 2019 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

Indeed but that does not seem to be the case, does it?

 

I have seen nothing to indicate that Trump is a Libertarian, have you?

He’s an opportunist without a core ideology other than self aggrandizement and an intense fear of “losing “. This makes anything that looks like “winning “ possible. If he gives in he risks “losing” and looking like a typical politician who has to compromise to get anything done.

 

I think he will end it only if he can show he “won”.

Endret 6. januar 2019 av jjkoggan

[Skatteflyktning]

He’s an opportunist without a core ideology other than self aggrandizement and an intense fear of “losing “. This makes anything that looks like “winning “ possible. If he gives in he risks “losing” and looking like a typical politician who has to compromise to get anything done.

 

I think he will end it only if he can show he “won”.

Agreed, both him and Pelosi will declare victory in the end, though of course Donald will have the biggest "win".

[jjkoggan]

It takes both parties to maintain the shutdown ... unlikely.

 

Understand the frustration when faced with arguments based on entirely different premises, however that does not invalidate the arguments.

A person who is for prohibition of alcohol does not add much value to discussions about what wine is best with different foods, especially when his main comment is that they are all bad. He would add much more value to discussions about prohibition.

[Skatteflyktning]

A person who is for prohibition of alcohol does not add much value to discussions about what wine is best with different foods, especially when his main comment is that they are all bad. He would add much more value to discussions about prohibition.

In a discussion amongst religious people about which god is the true god, it would seem that the cynical and sceptical agnostic might add significant value by asking "How do you even know that any of your gods exist, are good and not evil, etc?"

 

Naturally all the religious folks will be extremely annoyed by this and try to shut the guy up any way they can. After all they all agree that this is heresy and should not be allowed.

Endret 6. januar 2019 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

In a discussion amongst religious people about which god is the true god, it would seem that the cynical and sceptical agnostic might add significant value by asking "How do you even know that any of your gods exist, are good and not evil, etc?"

 

Naturally all the religious folks will be extremely annoyed by this and try to shut the guy up any way they can. After all they all agree that this is heresy and should not be allowed.

You are confused. In a holistic sense the atheist might “save the people” but the atheist would add little to the narrower question of whether God a is better than god B.

 

There is a reason that debate teams are disqualified if they argue that C is better than A or B when the debate is on the question of A or B. That’s because it doesn’t answer the question of A or B. C is irrelevant to the question even if it’s true that C is better than Aor B and might save the world

Endret 7. januar 2019 av jjkoggan

[Skatteflyktning]

 

You are confused. In a holistic sense the atheist might “save the people” but the atheist would add little to the narrower question of whether God a is better than god B.

 

There is a reason that debate teams are disqualified if they argue that C is better than A or B when the debate is on the question of A or B. That’s because it doesn’t answer the question of A or B. C is irrelevant to the question even if it’s true that C is better than Aor B and might save the world

I am afraid you are the one that is confused.

 

For god A to be better than god B, or vice versa, it is necessary for these gods to exist, thus the question of whether or not one or both do exist or not is critical to determine which is better.

 

Which is faster: A unicorn or an Arab thoroughbred?

 

To claim that the existential question is irrelevant would seem a little odd.

Endret 7. januar 2019 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

  I am afraid you are the one that is confused.

 

For god A to be better than god B, or vice versa, it is necessary for these gods to exist, thus the question of whether or not one or both do exist or not is critical to determine which is better.

God's existence can't be proven or disproven and it is a poor example because the existence of Trump and political systems is unquestioned. Whether Trump is a bad or good politician is not answered by claiming all politicians are bad and the world would be better without them.

[Skatteflyktning]

 

God's existence can't be proven ...

... if the god does not exists. If it exists it CAN be proven quite easily by the god itself or by anyone that meet that said god.

 

...or disproven

Indeed it is the proof of not existance that is extremely difficult.

 

and it is a poor example because the existence of Trump and political systems is unquestioned. Whether Trump is a bad or good politician is not answered by claiming all politicians are bad and the world would be better without them.

The existence of any good politicians cannot be proven.... or at least has not been proven until now. It is like the Chimera or the unicorn.

 

The existence of bad politicians is proven every day ... including by Trump himself.

Endret 7. januar 2019 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

 ... if the god does not exists. If it exists it CAN be proven quite easily by the god itself or by anyone that meet that said god.

 

Indeed it is the proof of not existance that is extremely difficult.

 

The existence of any good politicians cannot be proven.... or at least has not been proven until now. It is like the Chimera or the unicorn.

 

The existence of bad politicians is proven every day ... including by Trump himself.

Again, your arguments are irrelevant. They don't answer the question of Trump's relative performance.