🖕 🍊 🤡 A Continuing Round-Up of Trumpian Events 🖕 🍊 🤡

So I can’t find it now, but in one of the many threads about arguing with thanksgiving relatives someone linked an article about how to talk to people with different political opinions. The idea was you get people to be as specific as possible and as they try to be specific they start to realize they aren’t as certain as they thought.

The example given was an experiment where they asked people if they knew how toilets work. Of course most people say yes. Then they ask them to explain in as much detail as possible how they work. As people try to give details they realize they don’t know as much as they thought and they come down from their position of certainty and become more open to learning.

How much do you need to know to know that water pressure has nothing to do with how much water comes out when you flush a toilet, but rather affects how long it takes for the toilet to refill and be ready for another flush?


Ben Shapiro does this sometimes to trip up people trying to argue with him.


I remember that…nope, not finding it either.


What it the thread about Sunset magazine and the pot gravy?

It came up in there, then later that same day there was a new topic specifically about talking to people you don’t agree with, so maybe in there.



@Humbabella @chgoliz

I think you’re looking for this post?

I wanted to send it to my daughter a couple days ago, it took me forever to find.


  • Abuse of power : “It is an impeachable offense for the president to exercise the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest. That is exactly what president trump did when he solicited and pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 presidential election.” Nadler said.

  • Obstruction of Congress : " A president who declares himself above accountability, above the American people and above congress’ power of impeachment — which is meant to protect against threats to our democratic institutions — is the President who sees himself as above the law," Nadler said.


Thank you!

I don’t think that’s the one I was thinking of. I’m sure there were quite a few articles on the subject, just before Thanksgiving!

But, still, worth reading.


I imagine when Shapiro does this the intent is to find any tiny fault-adjacent thing in the argument so that Shapiro can try to make the entire discussion about that. Like you spend an hour explaining everything in peer-reviewed detail and Shapiro turns the entire discussion about how one of the journals you cite had an editor in 1967 who was accused of shoplifting so obviously your entire argument is founded on a lie.

I think if the technique is employed in good faith the point is not to p-hack for something to attack the other person with, but instead to alter the direction of the conversation away from argument and towards discussion.

Long story short; Trump doesn’t know how a toilet works.

There were sooooo many.


Trump: Those democrats want me to fail at everything. They’re all out to get me. It’s all their fault that I can’t get nothing done.

Democrats on capitol hill:



“The IG includes another claim: “‘Report 113 (sources based in St. Petersburg reported that Trump has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities in St. Petersburg, including participating in sex parties, but that witnesses had been ‘silenced,’ i.e., bribed or coerced to disappear).’”



The analysis of the Steele Dossier that I heard a long time ago that I still think makes perfect sense is that most likely much of the contents were leaked to Steele by the Russian government to manipulate Trump. Some of the contents are true stories of Trump’s criminality and some are outrageous and disprovable falsehoods. So the pee tape probably doesn’t exist, but some of the other allegations involving financial crimes in the dossier are very true.

Which is, of course, all completely logical and a good bit of spycraft were it not for the fact that Trump is an utterly aberrant person. If they released a similar document on McConnell, McConnell would properly dismiss the salacious allegations (and everyone would believe McConnell) while getting the “we own you” message from the real allegations. But Trump exists in a world where the truth means nothing and Trump cannot be manipulated through shame due to their completely orthogonal-to-normal system of processing shame. To Trump a false allegation of misconduct is exactly the same as a real one because it’s only about a perception of having an enemy.


I have privately mused that Trump engaged in illegal sexual behavior, and that behavior is being used for blackmail.

I suspect it’s not just plain old hooker sex.

(If someone pays a woman for sex and doesn’t abuse her I won’t hold that against them… IFFFFFF she’s freely participating, 18+, and not related to you)


I think that if any of us wants to pay for sex we ought to be putting some level of effort in to make sure that the person we are paying is a non-coerced professional and not, say, the victim of human trafficking or someone being forced to work with threats of violence. And the richer the person doing the purchasing is, the less they can be forgiven for glossing over that step. Landing in Moscow and asking for some hookers to be sent to your hotel room is showing a marked indifference to the well-being of the women who arrive. A person can hardly be forgiven for not knowing the potential for abuse there.


That’s a really good point. It shows up clearly in how he talks about the impeachment process. He sees the House process as inherently biased, because they are saying negative things about him; likewise the Senate trial he perceives will be “fair” not because it will reveal the truth but because he thinks it will be biased in his favor.


A teenage sex scandal wouldn’t budge his approval ratings too much. We saw that with Roy Moore, how the right wing rationalized his behavior.

It’d have to be younger than a teen for his followers to turn on him. Or something I’ve said here before, which has been echoed in the Breitbart comments: A dude.


Or combination of that old quote; a dead boy.

That would probably do it.


What’s the line about “a dead girl or a live boy”? I am still not sure those would do it either. For starters, Fox and Breitbart would never cover the story, so the base would not hear about it. Advantage of epistemological closure, I guess.



Fox and Breitbart might not turn on him, but his rabid followers would turn on him in a second, despite the lip service they pay to loyalty.

I regularly stare into the abyss by reading the comments on Breitbart. It is instructive! On stories where Trump is suggesting even the smallest amount of gun control regulation, the folks in the comments completely lose their shit and call him a gun grabber, RINO, Democrat, etc. And all those negative comments get deleted. You can actually watch them get nuked in real time.

Trump’s popularity with his base is a mile wide, but mere inches deep. Something bad enough will flip them, but it’s got to be worse than shooting a guy on 5th avenue. It’s got to be something both undeniable and unpalatable to conservatives.