J.C.MacSwell

Certainly no more than Swansont. He claimed MigL should take Phi's list as factual and reply point by point despite the overwhelmingly obvious anti-Trump rhetoric. I allowed him a much more defendable position on Trump and the environment to demonstrate it, along with some other claims by Phi, were just opinions. Not facts.

I am not defending Trump, nor am I disputing Swansont's opinion of him with regard to the environment.

With regard to what? His opinion, or his ability to claim it as fact?

Just in case you missed where this started, Swansont and I are not debating whether Trump cares about the environment. Swansont seems to want to make the case that Trump doesn't care about the environment can be taken as an objective fact.

It doesn't. It means he prioritizes other things. I drive a vehicle. I realize it harms the environment, yet still do so. Does this mean I don't care about the environment?

What objective science do you feel I don't agree with? Even if you could somehow correlate it with the actions of Trump (I think we can reasonably agree you could) it doesn't automatically mean he doesn't care. He could be misinformed, or care more about the economy or being re-elected, or any number of other reasons good or bad. You can't claim as fact that he does not care. It's an opinion.

Not always. I would say that generally analogies don't fully equate. Rarely would they in all respects. He used himself as an example to not offend anyone. Apparently it didn't work.

Yet it has a different meaning overall. Context is the key. You've come full circle here. Raider was not off topic. What he said was relatable to "Stupid Woman" without being equivalent. Your attempt to understand him, even after all attempts to clarify...has failed. He did not change what he intended to get across. I understood him the first time. If you did not that was fine. Raider clarified. Repeatedly and consistently IMO. I don't see the game you are suggesting. If by that you mean the extreme left I absolutely agree. Many are aware (and should be concerned)

See Swansont's post. Facts I agreed with that not only related to, but supported, this opinion.

...and "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"...is your opinion based on those facts. Again...an opinion that I would not dispute...but still not a fact. ...and quite different from "not caring at all" if I may paraphrase Phi. None.

I would agree with the sentiment. Not that my opinion makes it any more factual. What was the nature of the 2.5 billion offered? (as you said earlier ...almost half of the 5.7, but was it toward new Wall?) I thought the 1.3 was not toward the wall but other border related. Is that incorrect?

Some were. Some were clearly opinion. The fact that you would strongly agree with them doesn't change that. Trump may in fact care "fuck-all" about the environment. I doubt this is the case, but I would not dispute it, as I don't think he has the amount of concern for the environment that I think he should. But it's hardly a fact. It's rhetoric, and opinion.

I really don't know. What I see is more political posturing, some of it very bad rhetoric, with little apparent attempts to break the stalemate without having the other side look bad. No. I think Trump indicated he would make concessions elsewhere if he got his wall money.

I don't think you are saying both sides have equivalently bad behaviour. Correct me if I am wrong.

Then put it in the Constitution... ...Border Walls are Immoral. We find this truth to be self evident...

Who is suggesting it is? Bad behaviour is bad behaviour...it's not good behaviour if you can point to worse.

You mean how can I say their behaviour is bad? They can do their part by making a case that they can convince Trump that there are better solutions to the problem available than building a wall, and stop calling the idea of one immoral. What is the value of the 5.7 billion dollars of Wall. 2 Billion? Zero? negative amount?

I guess neither side should give in then...

Much of it was anti Trump rhetoric, that while it may be true, had nothing to do with the wall. While certainly possible, it is hard to glean much good information from bad in what at least superficially looks like a rant. At best, it is good at convincing those already convinced, and to that degree the echo chamber comment is not far off the mark.

PoLa Bear Cola...I think you got something there...

I really don'y know if that is true or not, but the appearance to me is that they are being political, first and foremost. Trump of course is expected to be that way in as rude a manner as ever, but seems willing to call 200 extra miles of expensive fence his "wall" and have Americans pay for it...a fair step down on one of his most notable promises he was elected on.

This is more than arguing against equivalence. (not that MigL claimed equivalence) This is arguing that it is good vs evil. The best arguments really come down to how the money could be better spent and how best to regulate the border.

I've said this before in other threads, but I don't think the polarization and rhetoric would have gotten to the level it has if there was a third party in the US. There has to be some pretty fertile ground in the middle for moderates right now...but they would be outcasts to either party.

Sorry to hear that. Not something anyone would fully get over...even 50 years later.

Doesn't the ability to define a coordinate system help make it clear that there is no universal up or down? Do any of us agree which way is up using the system described?