CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
TWIMPOTUS is the most feared POTUS ever. He DEMANDS loyalty just like his predecessor, Adolph Hitler. If you don't do as I say, VE VILL HUNT YOU DOWN! Conservatives are SO afraid of him they even fear him when he's playing GOLF!
By the way, did you see his record? He played golf for almost 340 days of his ONE TERM reign! Nearly one full year of his reign was spent ON THE GOLF COURSE, and he cost the taxpayers over a million$ a game! (Much of which he put in his own pocket)! He didn't HAVE to take a salary, he made more money than any other President! (Of course, he wasn't really a President, he was a CON MAN, and that certainly doesn't mean "CONservative"!
What do you like about an individual who strikes fear into his "friends"?? (Like Adolph).
I think your debate is from a rather poor stance or completely based on a bad faith argument outright.
His predecessor wasn't Hitler and continuing to try and equate the two men together, is a rather tired and at this point, idiotic thing to do. As people have repeatedly come out to try and claim that the man was some sort of fascist tyrant. Yet his time in office shows otherwise.
Also, his record isn't even near 340 days. I've checked several sites now and all I can find is that he's actually played a little over 140 days, as those are days that evidence of him playing was actually obtained. While the site that apparently cataloged all of this, seemed to insinuate far more due to just even the barest of travel records.
We also know that this money did not go directly into his own pocket, as much of the services attained by his own property for government use. Was most likely operated at cost or offered free of charge.
You do realize how one-note your beginning to sound in all of this, don't you?
Because aside from doing the same falsified runaround of equating Trump to Hitler. You also had to bring up a point of him playing golf, far more than you'd like him to, and even that was based on a lie.
So aside from appearing childish, you really having nothing else going for you.
Stick your tongue up his ass all you want comrade, we sane, patriotic Americans are just glad that Trumps assault on America and our constitution is at long last finally over.
I would think just the "everyday" actions WE, on the ACTUAL news as opposed to the "alternate facts news" that is watched by the right, would clearly give you the "assertion supports" you need. But, then, you only get the alternate version.
The speech on Jan. 6 should be a GREAT starting point. Then the 60 or so "alternate voting fact" suits against the states .... without the alternate facts spread by the likes of Hannity and Carleson SHOULD give one a hint about what Rump was "asserting" contrary to our Constitution ... just sayin'.
It really is frightening. This "alternative news" thing is insane. It's literally like a bunch of wingnuts have simply decided to turn all the facts upside down, and then demanded their "version" be given equal credibility on political grounds.
So that's a no on anything to support those previous assertions then.
Given that his speech on Jan 6th, wasn't exactly like you're trying to sell it as, and I don't actually know what you mean by "alternate voting fact" without having something shown as a precedent here.
So, once again. Is there anything that can be supplied that would prove the previous assertions?
Dr. I could show you fact after fact, obviously, and it wouldn't register to that fascist, Kool-Aid soaked blotter riding on your shoulders. You have a good day.
Apparently you can't show any facts to support any claims that I've seen made, but you've got more than enough hot air in your to "say" that you could. Then throw off handed insults, as though that seems to work for you in any fashion.
You're not the first person who's failed to supply this evidence when directly asked. So I don't really have an issue with you being unable to actually stand up to your own convictions, on what should be such an easy subject.
The reason I don't "support" any claims that I made is that I would be wasting my time. The "claims" are supported online, everywhere, and have been SEEN BY EVERYONE .... except on RW-controlled areas. People of your agenda would look at them and not see a thing. Blind in the left eye, and told to NOT believe what they SEE out of the right. "Believe what I tell you!" That makes the subject even easier, just believe what you are told to believe. As I've said before, Hitler-like.
Which basically means that you have nothing to back up anything that you're stating. And you'll simply resorting to claiming that the information is widely known already, even though you've failed to support any such claim, or add any form of citation, either through ignorance, or laziness.
I gave you your chance to support your claims and you cowered away from that opportunity.
You've basically hung yourself, with your own rope at this point.
Bronto, you are quite simply delusional. It is you who cannot back up anything you are saying. This is just simply the schtick of Nazis. Turn everything on its head. Whatever the facts show, claim the total opposite.
Seeing as you couldn't be bothered to actually read the list yourself. I find it hard that someone could miss how stupid it is to fact check an opinion, joke, or insult.
Nice try Clementine.
You really need to learn to think before you post.
You do realize that none of those constitute an assault on the nation, or our constitution, correct?
All you're doing is supplying a list that has nothing to do with the current discussion, and acting as though it gives you some form of upper hand. Even though the list also compromises instances of Trump's own opinions & jokes. So their definition of "false or misleading" is rather misleading in of itself.
So you're free to keep that nonsensical quip about joining reality to yourself. That is until you're actually ready to legitimately join this discussion.
So your concept of an attack on the nation and our constitution, is lying to the American public?
Which means that every president in the past has done this as well, not to mention every media outlet that we can find with enough reach to meet the public at large. Even depending on how many people who see these post, you yourself, are just as culpable for this same claim.
Do you not see the fault in your logic at this point, or do I need to keep spelling it out for you?
So your concept of an attack on the nation and our constitution, is lying to the American public?
I believe telling 20,000 lies to the American public in a four year period is an attack on the principles upon which America was founded, and I think your apparent belief that it is not is extremely disturbing. Can you show me where exactly in the constitution it says to disregard the truth and make up your own version?
You're asking me to do something that you are already doing yourself.
In fact, you put in validation for some form of act and then you apply a distinction to it, that only vaguely applies.
Are you sure that Obama, or any other president hasn't told more than 20,000 lies?
Are you sure that no other politician has done the same?
Are you sure that all of these lies told by Trump, are actually lies?
Because I can tell you right now, I don't care about people fact checking his jokes, his insults, or his snide comments/opinions.
You're basically deciding to write an exemption for everyone else and solely hold him accountable. For something that doesn't even equate to inciting violence, or leading those people towards the capitol. In fact, your argument is so weak, that you have to swing such a wide brush as to cover his entire presidency.
You really need to learn to think of this kind of thing before you post.
Are you sure that Obama, or any other president hasn't told more than 20,000 lies?
I am quite sure that Obama hasn't told more than 20,000 lies to the American public because he was also fact-checked.
I am doubly sure that Obama has got absolutely nothing to do with whether lying 20,000 times to the very public it is your sworn duty to protect, constitutes an attack on American values.
No, he was mostly doted on, and not fact checked. Then again, they also didn't seek to check anything and everything that he said. Be it a joke, an opinion, or anything else. So it's easy how to see the list could be so inflated on it's own right.
All you're doing is making an excuse to say that one politician can be allowed to lie, and not the other cannot.
Even though, the concept of just lying in general, counts as "attacks on the nation & constitution". Is still rather laughable.
The fact that you're missing where all of this fact checking is coming, after the fact of his presidency. While Trump could barely breath a word before someone ruled it as true, or false. Is not something that comes as a surprise to me.
Then again, these fact checks only arrived, in part, due to scrutiny of his own actions. Not to mention the myriad of falsities that he would end up speaking during his own presidency.
This also covers the fact that Obama did not have to deal with people fact checking his jokes, his opinions, and even his obvious overblowing of events like the Whitehouse dinner. And when leveled at the quaint little list that PolitiFact is supplying for Obama. It's painfully obvious that they didn't care to dig their nails in, like they'd done with Trump.
So your little attempts at calling fact, a conspiracy, is easily disproven.
To be honest, fact-checking in general. Especially when it comes to instances of such a political nature. Are nearly entirely worthless. If not for the dubious nature of such journalist' integrity, or their insistence to nitpick on anything, and everything. No matter if it's a misleading statement, or not.
You do realize that none of those constitute an assault on the nation, or our constitution, correct?
You are quite literally retarded. You complain that people don't provide information to support their opinions, but of course the reason for that is you reject the information every time it is provided to you.
No, you provided nothing that showed an assault on the nation, or the our constitution. It's as simple as that.
And now you're just upset that you keep getting called out for these kinds of things, and you repeatedly fall back into childish insults as a kneejerk response.
Seeing as the impeachment trial did not prove wrongdoing on his part. I'd say that it's rather evident that he was going to be acquitted from the get go.
Because as it goes, the democrats could not support their assertions that Trump was actually instigating anything, and to harm their own efforts even more. They were caught trying to fabricate their own evidence against him, including doctored videos covering his speech.
If you and 12 other people chose to follow the same lie, that would still only make you a group of people who chose to support a lie.
Then again, as with the last impeachment attempt. The democrats most likely had to fall back on their same roots of threatening their own people to vote in line, or be punished.
Either way, they still failed all things considered. So this wasted effort of yours is cute, but that's about it.
If you and 12 other people chose to follow the same lie
57 senators heard the evidence and decided that it wasn't a lie. You have shown us no evidence that Trump's impeachment was a lie so -- much like Trump -- you are brazenly inventing your own version of reality.
You mean they heard what was being pushed of evidence, yet showed no act of Trump pushing the crowed to break into the capitol, cause violence, or even take the life of another human being?
In fact, the evidence in question was so scant. That the democrats had to fabricate their own, and doctor videos of Trump's own speech.
You mean they heard what was being pushed of evidence
I mean your wild conspiracy theories do not constitute any form of evidence, yet you are using them to attack the actual evidence which was presented and upon which a decision was based.
No, my claim was that he was doted on. Which they still managed to do in their effort to "fact-check" him.
Then again, you're practically admitting that you didn't watch the clown show, or at least check up on the occurrences that came up after. Such as the democrats having been caught, using photoshopped evidence in their case. Not to mention outright fabricating things not said by other party members.