Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Trump Supporters are Inconsistent

Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:15:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The main critique of Hillary Clinton is that she is perceived as a "liar" and "untrustworthy" which is a fair criticism. She has been caught lying on several occasions so it's consistent to assume she is a liar if she lies. What confuses me about Trump supporters, however, is that Trump lies just as much if not more. If you are going to disqualify Hillary for office based on her willingness to lie, then you have to disqualify Trump for the same reason. When you acknowledge that both candidates lie, at that point you have to disqualify lying as a gauge for whom to elect unless you elect a candidate who does not lie. Which leaves Johnson and Stein whom would still possibly fall under the lying critique. Politicians lie to get elected, always have and always will. You can virtually dismiss lying as a gauge for who is the "best" candidate. You also cannot logically use it as a gauge for one candidate and then dismiss the other candidates lies without being inconsistent.

What is left for us to gauge a candidate off of at that point?

Their ability to lead
Their qualifications
Their reputation
etc

At that point, it's quite easy to gauge who is more fit

On one hand, you have Trump who has built a career and started his campaign based on controversy. Who is an open racist and bigot, and who's name is virtually synonymous with intolerance and ineptitude. Someone who cannot maintain a calm demeanor over tweets and criticism. Someone who has no prior experience with politics. Someone who has shown consistently that he is not fit for office, or does not have any idea of what is going on in the world.[1][2][3][4][5]. He is the manifestation of all the resentment toward establishment politics.

On the other hand, you have Clinton who has a resume as large as Trump's ego. Granted a great deal of this has been handed to her, she *has* still spent her life in politics. Her qualifications include being First Lady, Secretary of State, and a Law Degree from Yale. She has been involved in politics for a majority of her life and understands how politics work.

I am not a fan of either one of them but the choice is obvious. Once you disqualify lying as a metric for who to elect, the only thing you have left is who is more fit. This election is the equivalent of having two people apply for an engineering job. You have one person who has been to school, finished his masters, and has already had training in the field. The other person ,however, has a degree in agriculture and spent his life raising chickens in the backwoods of Alabama and has never taken a class in college or engineering in his life. If you were the owner of the company ask yourself who you would hire.

I understand people are tired of establishment politics but electing Trump is not the solution. It's condemning the country to a fate that could possibly be irreparable.

[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:58:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:15:24 PM, Mikal wrote:
The main critique of Hillary Clinton is that she is perceived as a "liar" and "untrustworthy" which is a fair criticism. She has been caught lying on several occasions so it's consistent to assume she is a liar if she lies. What confuses me about Trump supporters, however, is that Trump lies just as much if not more. If you are going to disqualify Hillary for office based on her willingness to lie, then you have to disqualify Trump for the same reason. When you acknowledge that both candidates lie, at that point you have to disqualify lying as a gauge for whom to elect unless you elect a candidate who does not lie. Which leaves Johnson and Stein whom would still possibly fall under the lying critique. Politicians lie to get elected, always have and always will. You can virtually dismiss lying as a gauge for who is the "best" candidate. You also cannot logically use it as a gauge for one candidate and then dismiss the other candidates lies without being inconsistent.

What is left for us to gauge a candidate off of at that point?

Their ability to lead
Their qualifications
Their reputation
etc

At that point, it's quite easy to gauge who is more fit

On one hand, you have Trump who has built a career and started his campaign based on controversy. Who is an open racist and bigot, and who's name is virtually synonymous with intolerance and ineptitude. Someone who cannot maintain a calm demeanor over tweets and criticism. Someone who has no prior experience with politics. Someone who has shown consistently that he is not fit for office, or does not have any idea of what is going on in the world.[1][2][3][4][5]. He is the manifestation of all the resentment toward establishment politics.


On the other hand, you have Clinton who has a resume as large as Trump's ego. Granted a great deal of this has been handed to her, she *has* still spent her life in politics. Her qualifications include being First Lady, Secretary of State, and a Law Degree from Yale. She has been involved in politics for a majority of her life and understands how politics work.

I am not a fan of either one of them but the choice is obvious. Once you disqualify lying as a metric for who to elect, the only thing you have left is who is more fit. This election is the equivalent of having two people apply for an engineering job. You have one person who has been to school, finished his masters, and has already had training in the field. The other person ,however, has a degree in agriculture and spent his life raising chickens in the backwoods of Alabama and has never taken a class in college or engineering in his life. If you were the owner of the company ask yourself who you would hire.


I understand people are tired of establishment politics but electing Trump is not the solution. It's condemning the country to a fate that could possibly be irreparable.




[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

+1
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
When the lies cancel out, all you have left to go on is the policies they are lying to promote.

Hillary wants to kill job creation to purchase votes from diverse groups and Trump doesn't.

Hillary promotes warhawk policies, Trump is the opposite.

Hillary wants to continue to reshape America to look more like Europe, Trump promotes the idea that we should retain our culture.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 6:12:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:15:24 PM, Mikal wrote:
The main critique of Hillary Clinton is that she is perceived as a "liar" and "untrustworthy" which is a fair criticism. She has been caught lying on several occasions so it's consistent to assume she is a liar if she lies. What confuses me about Trump supporters, however, is that Trump lies just as much if not more. If you are going to disqualify Hillary for office based on her willingness to lie, then you have to disqualify Trump for the same reason. When you acknowledge that both candidates lie, at that point you have to disqualify lying as a gauge for whom to elect unless you elect a candidate who does not lie. Which leaves Johnson and Stein whom would still possibly fall under the lying critique. Politicians lie to get elected, always have and always will. You can virtually dismiss lying as a gauge for who is the "best" candidate. You also cannot logically use it as a gauge for one candidate and then dismiss the other candidates lies without being inconsistent.

What is left for us to gauge a candidate off of at that point?

Their ability to lead
Their qualifications
Their reputation
etc

At that point, it's quite easy to gauge who is more fit

On one hand, you have Trump who has built a career and started his campaign based on controversy. Who is an open racist and bigot, and who's name is virtually synonymous with intolerance and ineptitude. Someone who cannot maintain a calm demeanor over tweets and criticism. Someone who has no prior experience with politics. Someone who has shown consistently that he is not fit for office, or does not have any idea of what is going on in the world.[1][2][3][4][5]. He is the manifestation of all the resentment toward establishment politics.


On the other hand, you have Clinton who has a resume as large as Trump's ego. Granted a great deal of this has been handed to her, she *has* still spent her life in politics. Her qualifications include being First Lady, Secretary of State, and a Law Degree from Yale. She has been involved in politics for a majority of her life and understands how politics work.

I am not a fan of either one of them but the choice is obvious. Once you disqualify lying as a metric for who to elect, the only thing you have left is who is more fit. This election is the equivalent of having two people apply for an engineering job. You have one person who has been to school, finished his masters, and has already had training in the field. The other person ,however, has a degree in agriculture and spent his life raising chickens in the backwoods of Alabama and has never taken a class in college or engineering in his life. If you were the owner of the company ask yourself who you would hire.


I understand people are tired of establishment politics but electing Trump is not the solution. It's condemning the country to a fate that could possibly be irreparable.




[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

I seperate said "lies" in this manner. Trump speaks off the cuff making statements that are factually incorrect per numbers, etc, but that is because he can't remember everything. Giving misinformation numberwise isn't dangerous just incorrect.

Hillary, on the other hand, has lies deliberately incorporated into her pre-prepared speech, so it is lying on purpose with intent, and the lies are lies that actually affect people in a substantial way.

Example: Trump said Hillary had been fighting ISIS her entire adult life". Technically not factual, but she has been fighting them a long time with little success, so the intent of his fallacy is true at heart and not danfmgerous nor does it affect us.

Hillary said "she did not support TPP and that Donald was in a dreamland" for saying so. That is a deliberate lie that affects policy and the everyday American per purposed deception. Big difference.

Second, I seperate the candidates in that she has scandals upon scandals that prove, her Presidency will be filled with? More Scandals. These scandals have cost us trade and technollogy secrets, gotten Americans killed, and silenced sexual assault and rape victims.

3)She lied 40+ times under oath to Congress(a felony if you or me), that's 40 lies that affect Americans in a big way. These are dangerous lies with malicious intent, not mis-statistics or off numbers, or abitrary part truths that affect no one. Her liesget people killed.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 6:12:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:15:24 PM, Mikal wrote:
The main critique of Hillary Clinton is that she is perceived as a "liar" and "untrustworthy" which is a fair criticism. She has been caught lying on several occasions so it's consistent to assume she is a liar if she lies. What confuses me about Trump supporters, however, is that Trump lies just as much if not more. If you are going to disqualify Hillary for office based on her willingness to lie, then you have to disqualify Trump for the same reason. When you acknowledge that both candidates lie, at that point you have to disqualify lying as a gauge for whom to elect unless you elect a candidate who does not lie. Which leaves Johnson and Stein whom would still possibly fall under the lying critique. Politicians lie to get elected, always have and always will. You can virtually dismiss lying as a gauge for who is the "best" candidate. You also cannot logically use it as a gauge for one candidate and then dismiss the other candidates lies without being inconsistent.

What is left for us to gauge a candidate off of at that point?

Their ability to lead
Their qualifications
Their reputation
etc

At that point, it's quite easy to gauge who is more fit

On one hand, you have Trump who has built a career and started his campaign based on controversy. Who is an open racist and bigot, and who's name is virtually synonymous with intolerance and ineptitude. Someone who cannot maintain a calm demeanor over tweets and criticism. Someone who has no prior experience with politics. Someone who has shown consistently that he is not fit for office, or does not have any idea of what is going on in the world.[1][2][3][4][5]. He is the manifestation of all the resentment toward establishment politics.


On the other hand, you have Clinton who has a resume as large as Trump's ego. Granted a great deal of this has been handed to her, she *has* still spent her life in politics. Her qualifications include being First Lady, Secretary of State, and a Law Degree from Yale. She has been involved in politics for a majority of her life and understands how politics work.

I am not a fan of either one of them but the choice is obvious. Once you disqualify lying as a metric for who to elect, the only thing you have left is who is more fit. This election is the equivalent of having two people apply for an engineering job. You have one person who has been to school, finished his masters, and has already had training in the field. The other person ,however, has a degree in agriculture and spent his life raising chickens in the backwoods of Alabama and has never taken a class in college or engineering in his life. If you were the owner of the company ask yourself who you would hire.


I understand people are tired of establishment politics but electing Trump is not the solution. It's condemning the country to a fate that could possibly be irreparable.




[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

Happy 11,000th post.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 6:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Whoops, it isn't your 11,000th post. Nevermind.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Here are the types of lies Hillary tells-

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 6:31:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 6:12:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/1/2016 5:15:24 PM, Mikal wrote:
The main critique of Hillary Clinton is that she is perceived as a "liar" and "untrustworthy" which is a fair criticism. She has been caught lying on several occasions so it's consistent to assume she is a liar if she lies. What confuses me about Trump supporters, however, is that Trump lies just as much if not more. If you are going to disqualify Hillary for office based on her willingness to lie, then you have to disqualify Trump for the same reason. When you acknowledge that both candidates lie, at that point you have to disqualify lying as a gauge for whom to elect unless you elect a candidate who does not lie. Which leaves Johnson and Stein whom would still possibly fall under the lying critique. Politicians lie to get elected, always have and always will. You can virtually dismiss lying as a gauge for who is the "best" candidate. You also cannot logically use it as a gauge for one candidate and then dismiss the other candidates lies without being inconsistent.

What is left for us to gauge a candidate off of at that point?

Their ability to lead
Their qualifications
Their reputation
etc

At that point, it's quite easy to gauge who is more fit

On one hand, you have Trump who has built a career and started his campaign based on controversy. Who is an open racist and bigot, and who's name is virtually synonymous with intolerance and ineptitude. Someone who cannot maintain a calm demeanor over tweets and criticism. Someone who has no prior experience with politics. Someone who has shown consistently that he is not fit for office, or does not have any idea of what is going on in the world.[1][2][3][4][5]. He is the manifestation of all the resentment toward establishment politics.


On the other hand, you have Clinton who has a resume as large as Trump's ego. Granted a great deal of this has been handed to her, she *has* still spent her life in politics. Her qualifications include being First Lady, Secretary of State, and a Law Degree from Yale. She has been involved in politics for a majority of her life and understands how politics work.

I am not a fan of either one of them but the choice is obvious. Once you disqualify lying as a metric for who to elect, the only thing you have left is who is more fit. This election is the equivalent of having two people apply for an engineering job. You have one person who has been to school, finished his masters, and has already had training in the field. The other person ,however, has a degree in agriculture and spent his life raising chickens in the backwoods of Alabama and has never taken a class in college or engineering in his life. If you were the owner of the company ask yourself who you would hire.


I understand people are tired of establishment politics but electing Trump is not the solution. It's condemning the country to a fate that could possibly be irreparable.




[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

Happy 11,000th post.

Thanks
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 9:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:58:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
When the lies cancel out, all you have left to go on is the policies they are lying to promote.

Hillary wants to kill job creation to purchase votes from diverse groups and Trump doesn't.

Hillary promotes warhawk policies, Trump is the opposite.

Hillary wants to continue to reshape America to look more like Europe, Trump promotes the idea that we should retain our culture.

I think this is perception. The idea that we should retain our culture assumes that our culture cannot evolve and if that were the case we would all be miserable.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 10:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 9:56:39 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/1/2016 5:58:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
When the lies cancel out, all you have left to go on is the policies they are lying to promote.

Hillary wants to kill job creation to purchase votes from diverse groups and Trump doesn't.

Hillary promotes warhawk policies, Trump is the opposite.

Hillary wants to continue to reshape America to look more like Europe, Trump promotes the idea that we should retain our culture.

I think this is perception. The idea that we should retain our culture assumes that our culture cannot evolve and if that were the case we would all be miserable.

I just look at Europe, and I think it's a big mistake to emulate that Euro culture.