Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (85988)	7/26/2018 12:30:35 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 368579

When you don't like the facts and the situation you should definitely go for a fallacy. And you found the argumentum ad absurdum- did you think we wouldn't notice? In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not ... " Is that a new policy position for Democrats? To have a President leave office with LESS wealth than he came in with? That begs a whole bunch of questions, doesn't it? For example: Will the law only pertain to Republican presidents? If leaving office with less wealth is a worthy goal, then why not require bankruptcy? If a president has to leave office with less wealth, then shouldn't he be barred from becoming wealthier after he leaves office, too? No books, no speaking tours.... What about a president who comes into office with no wealth? Should he be required to leave office in debt? If so, to whom would he owe money? And why stop at wealth? If Dems require that a president leave office worse off than he came in, why not require that he lose his friends and his family, too? Oh, and his dog. For sure his dog."

To: Katelew who wrote (85988)	7/26/2018 12:37:04 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 368579

"Is that a new policy position for Democrats? To have a President leave office with LESS wealth than he came in with? " If you would like it to be, I'll try to have it built into the '20 platform. "What about a president who comes into office with no wealth?" Gets paid $400K, gets everything for free, so start a 401 or something, save what he can, and have the spouse write a few books. "If Dems require that a president leave office worse off than he came in, why not require that he lose his friends and his family, too?" Good idea "Oh, and his dog. For sure his dog" Dawgs don't like Trump.

To: Katelew who wrote (85988)	7/26/2018 12:51:14 PM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Recommended By Ivan Inkling Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 368579

Wow, you really have become a "baby winger", to use a term you made up in another much earlier post. Take something that a compatriot made up, then pretend that it may be "a new policy position for Democrats", then ascribe a whole series of absurdities to Democrats. To complete the circle and graduate from "baby winger" into real full blown winger, all you need to do start an email chain, claiming that all of your craziness is actual fact. Way to go, well done, you're getting there! >>Is that a new policy position for Democrats? To have a President leave office with LESS wealth than he came in with? That begs a whole bunch of questions, doesn't it?