Today's batch of posts are a continuation of the Tonya Zylka batch of posts from below. This is a debate that took place in 2020, on this thread that I lost access to due to being blocked.
Kim Isaacson responded to meme mocking leftist double standards. In this situation, accusing Trump voters of not caring about his being "racist." If this were the case, the Democrats should accept a similar argument that they have no issues with Joe Biden's sniffing children's hair, and engaging in unusual activities related to children.
Kim Isaacson: [Redacted] I believe where there's smoke there's fire,
Your "there is smoke, therefore there is fire" argument is just a cover. It's a cover for your emotions and feelings behind your opposition to President Trump in particular, and conservatives in general. It's not a valid foundation for this argument.
You, along with the rest of the left, are desperately looking at any negative reporting on the president. And then, when you find something that you think is damaging, you automatically assume that he is in the wrong and that your opinion is "gospel".
The fact of the matter is that you attempted to accuse him of being a rapist. However, it speaks volumes that the person behind this claim does not push for it after the election. She had dropped it a second time, right after the day of the presidential election.
The leftist, propagandist, media does not like President Trump. Had this been a valid case, it most certainly would have dominated the news. The "rape" would have dominated the news during the transition. I say this based on my being a news junkie since 1982. The propagandist media covers the Republicans and Democrats differently.
The facts? The mainstream media did not blow this out of proportion. The person, that's the basis of this claim, didn't pursue these charges after the election.
Kim Isaacson: too many,
You disagree with much of what President Trump represents. That is where your "too many" comes from. That's not a valid argument to advance.
Kim Isaacson: I wouldn't trust him to watch my granddaughters, would you?
Would you trust Sleepy Creepy Joe to watch your granddaughters with nobody else present? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional response that you would want to provide to amplify your answer.
Kim Isaacson: I trust my gut,
No, what you are identifying as "gut instincts", is nothing but an incredibly biased anti-Trump opinion. Your bias is what is shaping how you see him... This will drive you to look for everything, anything, negative about President Trump. Then, based on what you find, you assume that what you come up with is "gospel".
Kim Isaacson: This man is an abuser,
Based on what? I'm sorry, your opinion, based on your anti-Trump bias, does not constitute a valid argument.
I have not seen any evidence of him being an abuser. I have not seen any court cases, or court convictions, convicting President Trump as an abuser. No police reports containing valid testimony.
You have absolutely no evidence other than your "gut instincts". These "instincts" are nothing but your anti-Trump bias.
Kim Isaacson: being a survivor
I have dismantled your arguments numerous times before. You've exposed to me your apparent psychological profile. What I am detecting, based on your arguments, and on your decision to argue an erroneous argument, is an apparent psychological profile. This profile contains three main components: a tendency for anger, a tendency for control, and narcissism issues.
You refuse to take responsibility for your own situation. Yet, you have a strong opinion about how things should go. While reading about domestic altercations, I have found that both sides of the equation, the man and the woman, possessed those three issues.
A battle for control. Both sides want things their way. Both sides exerted control to attempt to make it that way. Unfortunately, without compromise, neither side is going to get what they want. Enter anger.
You may have had a situation where you were in disagreement with the other party. This disagreement led to a chain of reactions that resulted in an altercation, or a series of altercations. Result? In addition to your political animosity against President Trump, you have effectively turned him into an "avatar" for the one who put you in the situation that you survived.
Through President Trump, and through those of us that you disagree with on Facebook, you wind up reliving the conflict... Making us the "avatar" for the antagonist in your survivor story.
You are still trying to, via these debates, relive and "win" that conflict with the attacker/abuser. Or... There is more to the story to your "survivor story" then what you are implying.
No comments:
Post a Comment