SCOTUS Upholds Trump Travel Ban

@reformed said:

If every time I say it, it's true, then it does make it so. In this case, as my previous previous posts made clear, I was critiquing your responses to a series of yes/no questions. That's what I said. That's what I did.

Like I said, just because you say so doesn't make it so. You aren't the sole arbiter of truth.

In the days and weeks to come, we're each likely to have far more consequential forum exchanges than this. Praise God.

I belittle Trumpster Truth because Trumpster Truth is not truth.

Of course you have come up with this term "Trumpster truth" to belittle people, not to attack what they actually said. Case? You have not yet admitted that what I said in response to you was true, or have yet to show how what I said in response to your questions was false. Instead, you lable me as someone subscribing to "Trumpster Truth"

If I lose my life's savings at a casino, then when my wife asks how I did, I say, "I think I lost more than I won," what I told her was true, but it wasn't the truth.

When I ask you whether there is any factual basis for the president's claim that three million illegals voted for Hillary Clinton, and you tell me that you "know illegals vote," what you told me is true, but it's not the truth.

No, that is actual truth. We do not know the actual answer. I don't, you don't.

By your logic, we can't know how many French, Brazilian, Russian, or Martian citizens voted either. As a result, in classic Trumpster Truth fashion, it will always be possible that three million illegals voted for Hillary Clinton, and it will always be possible that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (as I bet you know, it has been reported that Mr Trump has expressed to confidants his renewed doubts about Mr Obama's citizenship).

In my world, that's not how truth operates, reformed.

Again, we will let others decide. But you are not attacking my idea. You are attacking how I conduct myself.

I criticized your reference to the sanity of those who opine on Supreme Court rulings because I don't think we should intimate that people who disagree with us on issues - even Supreme Court issues - are insane. Take that as a personal criticism if you want, but it's not one. It's a criticism of your intimation that those who disagree with you on the Supreme Court ruling are insane.

Something tells me you won't see a difference between people and the content of their posts (neither did dct112685). You're welcome to your views, but in my posts and in my snark (!) there's a big difference between them.

And again, you ridiculous attack of comparing me to a former member. You privately have basically called me a liar for saying I am not that person. That is attacking me, not an idea.

I've offered to publish in a public thread all of our PMs to each other, reformed. Then people can decide for themselves whether I "basically called (you) a liar." My offer remains open.

For the reasons explained above, I understand but ultimately reject the "hypocrite" label.

You can reject it all you want, but you still are one. Quite honestly it is ridiculous to assert you don't do the very things you so vehemently criticize others of doing.

Hypocrite Extreme. Granted, you are a liberal so being a hypocrite is kind of a pre-requisite.

"Stupid," "ridiculous," "hypocrite extreme," and "liberal" all in the same post. It's like a greatest hits collection. Well done, reformed.