Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
re-considering my my post until I calm down.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
I don't do reading assignments from people who don't actually post their own thoughts.

It isn't an argument. But by all means, make one.
Click to expand...

It's actually a counter to your flawed assertion. If you don't do reading, what are you doing at a forum for critical thinking? Reading is sort of necessary.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Trump leads Clinton in the two most recent polls - the LA Times and Gravis.
Click to expand...

Couldn't find the LA Times poll you're referencing but Gravis has it within the margin of error which isn't great news for Trump between conventions. Traditionally the convention is worth a worst a point or two bump, often better.
 
JoeB said:
Couldn't find the LA Times poll you're referencing but Gravis has it within the margin of error which isn't great news for Trump between conventions. Traditionally the convention is worth a worst a point or two bump, often better.
Click to expand...

Looking at the trends, Trump did get a bumb from the convention. It's just that he was far enough behind that the bump almost brought him up to parity. If Clinton gets a convention bump, which I see no reason for why she wouldn't, we're back to a comfortable Clinton lead.
 
JoeB said:
Couldn't find the LA Times poll you're referencing but Gravis has it within the margin of error which isn't great news for Trump between conventions. Traditionally the convention is worth a worst a point or two bump, often better.
Click to expand...

Land line only and only allowed Donald or Clinton as choices that's very poor methodology especially forcing the binary choice.
 
uke2se said:
What do you say about policies based on racist thinking other than that they are racist?
Click to expand...

Broken record. Racist, racist, racist.

This is exactly what I mean: the left just can't get off this broken record.

Even though I don't support Trump, I am getting the same vitriol. It s so deeply ingrained in the left's way of doing things that they can't seem to do anything else. Sexist, racist, nutjob - it isn't working. Trump is ahead now.

I do NOT support Trump. But this strategy of calling him names failed all the way through the primaries, and it sure doesn't look like it is going to win the general election either.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Broken record. Racist, racist, racist.

This is exactly what I mean: the left just can't get off this broken record.
Click to expand...

Do you want me to repeat the question? Because you didn't answer it.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
I do NOT support Trump.
Click to expand...

Sure you don't. I bet you supported Bernie Sanders too, right? And next, you'll want to sell us a bridge. Concern trolling seems to becoming a sport these days.
 
uke2se said:
Do you want me to repeat the question? Because you didn't answer it.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a question. A rhetorical question. And it is to call him a racist.

You can go ahead and keep calling him a racist all the way down through November - and it isn't going to work.


Sure you don't. I bet you supported Bernie Sanders too, right? And next, you'll want to sell us a bridge. Concern trolling seems to becoming a sport these days.
Click to expand...

Calling me a troll is not an argument. This is exactly what I mean: this playbook of name-calling is not working. Racist! Troll!

Does calling me a troll make Hillary Clinton a better candidate than Donald Trump? No, but look how post after post from the left has nothing but name-calling.

Last fall Hillary led by as much as 18 points in polls. Since then she has spend hundreds of millions of dollars and is now behind. Trump spent virtually nothing.

It isn't melodramatic to say this is unprecedented. It is a fact. The media was doing everything it could to sabotage Trump and it ended up being his best advertising. His own party bosses hated him but he won by landslide.

Look at yourselves doing exactly what the media did with Trump: shriek about how insane he was, racist, fascist, etc. It is helping him. Because millions of people are tired of being called racists when they are not. They are sick of being called sexist when they are not. They are sick of being pointed to and called insane for having opinions shared by millions of other people.

I underestimated him but pretty quickly learned.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
There it is. Sexist!

Racist, sexist, insane, etc. That is the go-to strategy on the left.

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the poll numbers showing Trump ahead of Clinton.

So what if the nation is sick of the nastiness from the left? The "so-what" is that Trump leads Clinton.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
Read it and weep, bud.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Click to expand...

AlaskaBushPilot said:
I don't do reading assignments from people who don't actually post their own thoughts.

It isn't an argument. But by all means, make one.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can help you.

Here is the argument:

You're wrong - Trump doesn't lead Clinton in any meaningful way.
 
R

Joey McGee said:
I think we have found the source of your continued ignorance of the reality of the election.
Click to expand...

and again: ignorant. Just endless name-calling. Racist, insane, ignorant, etc.

If someone posts a scientific study, do you say "OK no, maybe if you'd explained it in your own words..." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There again - go ahead and roll your eyes. That is not an argument. Yes, I absolutely expect people to make arguments instead of just posting a link.

I am struck by how pervasive this is - like a national disease or something. But it tells me the left has nothing but this as their strategy for defeating Trump. Just keep yelling racist, insane, ignorant, etc. all the way down to the finish line.



What Hillary has ahead is national television debates.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
I am struck by how pervasive this is - like a national disease or something. But it tells me the left has nothing but this as their strategy for defeating Trump. Just keep yelling racist, insane, ignorant, etc. all the way down to the finish line.
Click to expand...

They're just now catching up, after practically handing the GOP the country in the 2010 elections. Baseless name calling - or more precisely, addressing labels instead of people - has been the Republican's stock in trade for more than a decade, because it works. It shouldn't work, but it does. If you think it's a disease, then trace back the "Kenyan Muslim terrorist" meme and you'll find Patient Zero.

As to the subtopic at hand, objecting to a policy because it's racist is like objecting to a wedding because it's incest. There might be other reasons, but that should be enough.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Broken record. Racist, racist, racist.

This is exactly what I mean: the left just can't get off this broken record.

Even though I don't support Trump, I am getting the same vitriol. It s so deeply ingrained in the left's way of doing things that they can't seem to do anything else . Sexist, racist, nutjob - it isn't working. Trump is ahead now.
Click to expand...

But you are wrong. It is NOT the only approach for liberals on this board and liberals in the media.

Just a few days ago, I went on an anti-Trump screed and did not mention racism or sexism.

Ladewig said:
I am not convinced that begging is anywhere near the correct strategy. If we cannot demonstrate though facts and evidence that Trump is a conman, huckster, and liar; an inexperienced candidate who does not understand concepts as simple as presidential candidates cannot start Super PACs; a willfully-ignorant blowhard who does not grasp the difference between the Consitution's amendments and articles; the type of a-hole that would mock a person's handicaps; a man so unable to speak about complex subjects in a direct and coherent manner that people praise him just for reading a prepared speech off a TelePrompter; a man so empty headed that when he was asked who helps him to stay abreast of foreign-intelligence issues, he actually named himself (!) because "I have have a very good brain" (!); a man who wants to limit freedom of the press because he didn't like the things that were said by some media outlets; then we shouldn't ask people to change their votes.

I was going to add about a dozen more but one has to stop somewhere.
Click to expand...

Other people have been mentioning his recent and ongoing lawsuits. Others have focused on the idiocy of his foreign-issue proposals. Others have focused on his being too thin-skinned to be president. Others have talked about his inability to shut up when shutting up would bring him closer to his goals. Others have talked about his talking **** about other Republicans when it is unnecessary. Others have talked about his childlike view of the world.

Your claim that we are only focusing on racism and sexism is incorrect.

And as I said before, even if some posters were to spend all their time focusing on Trump's alleged sexism and racism, it does not matter because no one here is using these Trump threads to make a decision. Yes such an approach will prove harmful if party leaders, Clinton, or the media focused only on that issue, but a few posters on an out-of-the-way message board wanting to blow off steam because they are amazed by the stupid things Trump says and does does not hurt anyone or anything.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
They're just now catching up, after practically handing the GOP the country in the 2010 elections. Baseless name calling - or more precisely, addressing labels instead of people - has been the Republican's stock in trade for more than a decade, because it works. It shouldn't work, but it does. If you think it's a disease, then trace back the "Kenyan Muslim terrorist" meme and you'll find Patient Zero.
Click to expand...

Tu Quoque is not an argument, and I am not a republican.


As to the subtopic at hand, objecting to a policy because it's racist is like objecting to a wedding because it's incest. There might be other reasons, but that should be enough.
Click to expand...

Racist, racist, racist.

You guys keep confirming that this is the strategy: keep calling Trump names, keep trying to shame and guilt-trip, bully, ridicule...

As a non-supporter of Trump I try to keep it to what I disagree with, torture being the top of my list. It is absolute fact he has not just come out in favor of torture, but says he will be meaner about it and more ready to apply it.

That is not the kind of person I want as president. I don't have to stoop to the tactics of screeching about racism, sexism, homophobia, hater, etc. etc.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Tu Quoque is not an argument, and I am not a republican.




Racist, racist, racist.

You guys keep confirming that this is the strategy: keep calling Trump names, keep trying to shame and guilt-trip, bully, ridicule...

As a non-supporter of Trump I try to keep it to what I disagree with, torture being the top of my list. It is absolute fact he has not just come out in favor of torture, but says he will be meaner about it and more ready to apply it.

That is not the kind of person I want as president. I don't have to stoop to the tactics of screeching about racism, sexism, homophobia, hater, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I disagree with his racism (among many other things). Are you saying you're OK with the President of the United States being a racist?
 
Ladewig said:
You claim that we are only focusing on racism and sexism is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. Name-calling. Ridicule - emotional tactics instead of logical arguments.

Sure there are exceptions. LIKE ME. Do you think I noticed myself talking calmly and rationally about torture? About deporting 11 million Mexicans?


but a few posters on an out-of-the-way message board wanting to blow off steam because they are amazed by the stupid things Trump says and does does not hurt anyone or anything.
Click to expand...

Oh, so I am just imagining that the arguments here are exactly matching what I see in the culture at large.

Why can't this be what the INTENTIONS of the forum are: rational, logical discussion instead of emotion-based fallacies?

The fact this place is supposedly populated by critical thinkers proves how thoroughly saturated our culture is with this emotion-based interaction.

You said you were so emotional that you had to calm down to post. This is exactly what I mean - it is the left getting all bent out of shape emotionally and thinking this is going to somehow hurt Trump.

Thank you for not calling me ignorant, racist, etc.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
It wasn't a question. A rhetorical question. And it is to call him a racist.

You can go ahead and keep calling him a racist all the way down through November - and it isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

It's already working. Most people know that Trump is a racist. You can argue that this isn't going to work against him in the election, but it remains a fact.



AlaskaBushPilot said:
Calling me a troll is not an argument. This is exactly what I mean: this playbook of name-calling is not working. Racist! Troll!
Click to expand...

I didn't call you a troll. I implied that you were concern trolling for Trump. It's rather obvious.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Does calling me a troll make Hillary Clinton a better candidate than Donald Trump? No, but look how post after post from the left has nothing but name-calling.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every aspect of Clinton makes her a better candidate than Trump.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Last fall Hillary led by as much as 18 points in polls.
Click to expand...

Last fall there were like 20 GOP candidates. Now there's one. Not very impressive argument.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Since then she has spend hundreds of millions of dollars and is now behind.
Click to expand...

Not if you look at polling averages, but that would sort of kill your argument, wouldn't it?


AlaskaBushPilot said:
Trump spent virtually nothing.
Click to expand...

So he says. He's lying, like always.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
It isn't melodramatic to say this is unprecedented. It is a fact. The media was doing everything it could to sabotage Trump and it ended up being his best advertising. His own party bosses hated him but he won by landslide.
Click to expand...

The media was playing right into Trump's hands, giving him free advertisement at every turn. Fail argument.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Look at yourselves doing exactly what the media did with Trump: shriek about how insane he was, racist, fascist, etc. It is helping him.
Click to expand...

It's helping him get the votes of insane people, racists and fascists. Fortunately there is a finite amount of those.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Because millions of people are tired of being called racists when they are not.
Click to expand...

Then they should stop saying racist things.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
They are sick of being called sexist when they are not.
Click to expand...

Then they should stop saying sexist things.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
They are sick of being pointed to and called insane for having opinions shared by millions of other people.
Click to expand...

Then they should stop acting insane.

AlaskaBushPilot said:
I underestimated him but pretty quickly learned.
Click to expand...

What was underestimated was the amount of people willing to vote for a fascist racist demagogue. Nobody is underestimating that anymore. Clinton is coming out into the general election guns blazing. It'll be a rout.
 
Tony Stark said:
Stupid scared white people.

Also, 538 is kinda an outlier. Other forecasts have him at like a 25% chance.
Click to expand...
Given how close elections for POTUS have been for decades, given some are rationalizing the SCOTUS nominations trump Trump's drawbacks, I think 538 is probably more realistic.
 
Arguing Trump is not racist, a sexist and a bigot when it comes to Muslims is one of those, "you must live in another universe," things.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Tu Quoque is not an argument, and I am not a republican.
Click to expand...
Neither is ad hominem, but that doesn't stop anyone, and I didn't say you were.

Racist, racist, racist.

You guys keep confirming that this is the strategy: keep calling Trump names, keep trying to shame and guilt-trip, bully, ridicule...

As a non-supporter of Trump I try to keep it to what I disagree with, torture being the top of my list. It is absolute fact he has not just come out in favor of torture, but says he will be meaner about it and more ready to apply it.

That is not the kind of person I want as president. I don't have to stoop to the tactics of screeching about racism, sexism, homophobia, hater, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not a democrat, so I don't care what "the strategy" that "you guys" are deploying is. Trump is undeniably sexist, and to a lesser extent, racist. Just because he's also a hateful sociopathic demagogue with the attention span of a ferret, whose only marketable skill is the ability to convince himself that whatever drivel leaving his mouth is what he firmly believes, doesn't make his racism and sexism any less racist or sexist.

I don't know about homophobia though. I don't remember him saying anything overtly homophobic, though the rest of the GOP will be the ones actually setting policy, so there you go.
 
Ex-General who was on Trump's VP shortlist approvingly Retweets anti-semitic remarks. Claims he meant to RT a different tweet.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/michael-flynn-tweet/

I've used Twitter quite a bit, for years, not always sober and I'm pretty sure I've never accidentally RT'd neo-nazis, but somehow the Trump campaign has a recurring problem with this.
 
Last edited:
JoeB said:
Ex-General who was on Trump's VP shortlist approvingly Retweets anti-semitic remarks. Claims he meant to RT a different tweet.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/michael-flynn-tweet/

I've used Twitter quite a bit, for years, not always sober and I'm pretty sure I've never accidentally RT's neo-nazis, but somehow the Trump campaign has a recurring problem with this.
Click to expand...

How often do you find yourself reading neo-Nazis on twitter?
 
Stacko said:
The death of the #neverTrump movement. A number of them came home. I'm betting he's doing better with Republicans.
Click to expand...

After the thing with Ted Cruz? I would have figured he'd be doing worse. But then, the GOP seems united in their hatred of Cruz for giving that speech, so maybe so.
 
Stacko said:
How often do you find yourself reading neo-Nazis on twitter?
Click to expand...

More often than I should because I like to read weird ideas but still not often.

Currently nowhere near the extent someone reading Trump's mentions would.
 
JoeB said:
More often than I should because I like to read weird ideas but still not often.

Currently nowhere near the extent someone reading Trump's mentions would.
Click to expand...

Add that to their really not caring if that oops happens and you get what happened to ret. Lt. Gen. Flynn.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Neither is ad hominem, but that doesn't stop anyone, and I didn't say you were.
Click to expand...

I say this merely for informational purposes, but "tu quoque" is generally taken to be a particular form of ad hominem argument.

When you say "ad hominem", you probably mean "ad hominem abusive", though of course there are ad homs which are neither abusive nor tu quoque. For instance, to dismiss my argument regarding fair pay for fast food workers because I'm a fast food worker (and hence, have a vested interest) is an ad hom, but is neither abusive nor tu quoque.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
You said you were so emotional that you had to calm down to post. This is exactly what I mean - it is the left getting all bent out of shape emotionally and thinking this is going to somehow hurt Trump.
Click to expand...


I am going to need a lot of help on this reasoning. I typed out a post, thought it might be too emotional charged, deleted the post, and then said I wanted to think about the post.

You then cited this as "exactly what I mean - it is the left getting all bent out of shape emotionally and thinking this is going to somehow hurt Trump. "

How did you conclude that I believed that my becoming emotionally charged would hurt Trump?

Also, why are you citing an example of a person becoming emotionally charged and then calming down as an example of the left being out of control. Wouldn't my deletion of my post be evidence for the exact opposite of your point?
 
phiwum said:
I say this merely for informational purposes, but "tu quoque" is generally taken to be a particular form of ad hominem argument.

When you say "ad hominem", you probably mean "ad hominem abusive", though of course there are ad homs which are neither abusive nor tu quoque. For instance, to dismiss my argument regarding fair pay for fast food workers because I'm a fast food worker (and hence, have a vested interest) is an ad hom, but is neither abusive nor tu quoque.
Click to expand...

I am a bit ashamed to say that I never knew that ad hominem could be used that way.

Thank you.
 
Ladewig said:
I am a bit ashamed to say that I never knew that ad hominem could be used that way.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

It just means personal. But on the net etc, ad hominem attack got shortened over time to ad hominem and now I see it abbreviated to ad hom.
 
I have another point I have questions on.
You said:

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Broken record. Racist, racist, racist.

This is exactly what I mean: the left just can't get off this broken record.

Even though I don't support Trump, I am getting the same vitriol. It s so deeply ingrained in the left's way of doing things that they can't seem to do anything else. Sexist, racist, nutjob - it isn't working. Trump is ahead now.
.
Click to expand...

I quoted you, highlighted your assertion, and responded


AlaskaBushPilot said:
though I don't support Trump, I am getting the same vitriol. It s so deeply ingrained in the left's way of doing things that they can't seem to do anything else. Sexist, racist, nutjob - it isn't working. Trump is ahead now.
Ladewig said:
But you are wrong. It is NOT the only approach for liberals on this board and liberals in the media....

....Your claim that we are only focusing on racism and sexism is incorrect....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To which, you replied

AlaskaBushPilot said:
I made no such claim. Name-calling. Ridicule - emotional tactics instead of logical arguments.
Click to expand...

So, what claim do you believe I have misattributed to you?
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
and again: ignorant. Just endless name-calling. Racist, insane, ignorant, etc.
Click to expand...
So sensitive! I actually used the most correct term to describe your lack of awareness of reality, your continued ignorance of the facts is apparently due to not researching the reality of polling and projection which is based on facts and history and mathematics. Ignorance is what you display by claiming that Trump leads Hilary, lmao.

There again - go ahead and roll your eyes. That is not an argument. Yes, I absolutely expect people to make arguments instead of just posting a link.
Click to expand...
The link is to a complex projection involving complicated math and polling results, you can't make that argument in your own words without wasting time, that's ridiculous. You're posturing over something that has no substance to it, like refusing to read a link saying that cellphones don't cause cancer because you want me to give a detailed lecture on cell damage and radiation, no one is fooled, we all know you're just using it as an excuse to listen to yourself because you're overconfident and you're trying to hurt people's feelings because you can't back up anything you claim.

I am struck by how pervasive this is - like a national disease or something. But it tells me the left has nothing but this as their strategy for defeating Trump. Just keep yelling racist, insane, ignorant, etc. all the way down to the finish line.
Click to expand...
I prefer idiot, incompetent, sociopath, conspiracy theorist, insecure megalomaniac and an *******. Sorry I forgot liar and ******** artist. Oh and seller of ****** products and ripoff artist of vulnerable students of his ****** business school. How are any of those things simply not true? Those are all facts that I can prove, other people have proven them conclusively. It's simply the facts. It's the most simple language. Isn't that why you like Trump?

Here's some more expert projection for you to ignore because you like your intuition better lol

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Trump is ahead now.
Click to expand...
PROVE IT. You made a claim, now provide evidence. You're wrong and basing this on your personal feelings...
I do NOT support Trump.
Click to expand...
I don't care... You are claiming he is winning, which is a joke. You also seem to take similar positions as him which brings your lack of support into question, kind of like someone saying they aren't against vaccines, just the unsafe ones.
But this strategy of calling him names failed all the way through the primaries, and it sure doesn't look like it is going to win the general election either.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you're talking about. People call him names, sure. But his policies have been meticulously dismantled and shown to be insane. His every false claim in his speeches have been debunked. His businesses have been exposed. His lies about climate change and autism have been debunked. His stupidity about the wall and immigration has been shown to be impossible and unworkable and futile. All with in-depth work by the press and political operatives. You're simply being delusional by saying oh people just call him names because in your head that's all you see, tunnel vision, because you see it as a way to criticize the left and feel smart about yourself. I've seen it a million times on a million political subjects, free advice, thank me when you're ready.
 
acbytesla said:
It just means personal. But on the net etc, ad hominem attack got shortened over time to ad hominem and now I see it abbreviated to ad hom.
Click to expand...

Yes.
I learned logical fallacies well before the Internet became popular. I should have known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom