Presidential Primaries 2016

[Belz...]

A man, not all men.

Of course, "all men". The fact that you thought he was a man was the basis of your argument. Man, therefore you don't understand. That's the essence of generalisation, on top of being an ad hominem.

And yes, people who are not the target of sexism/racism etc., often don't understand the issue.

Irrelevant.

You seem to think that Trump can't win over voters because of his positions and comments; but if anything, his campaign has shown that he can do just that.

 

[Belz...]

I wouldn't be generalizing if I were you.

No, you would only do that if you were Skeptic Ginger:

Are you a guy?

Trump's sexism is so blatant, you must be if you think he can win over more than a minority of hard right females and the women he pays and flatters that surround him.

You hear that, Stanf? Don't generalise!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I supported my positions. I see you only asserted they were wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Reading the rest of the article it also notes that everyone's priorities are not his sexism but their fantasy he can actually do what he claims he can.

Isn't that a point against you?

For women that give a rip about Trump's sexism, a female Veep is not going to make a lick of difference.

For people (including Trump) that deny his sexism, a female Veep helps their denial.

But you just said above that his sexism isn't the priority for people. You're thus excluding a potentially large group of people who simply focus on a different part of his campaign.

 

[Belz...]

I supported my positions.

You flip-flopped on the "all men" thing. That's not "supporting your position". Or were you refering to something else?

Apologizing for claiming I wouldn't and projecting your failure to post a link onto my shoulders would have been nicer.

What are we, fourth graders?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Argumemnon, the two of us to think on different tracks. You never seem to follow the one I'm on and I don't see how you arrive on the tracks you go off on. I don't have the time or energy for yet another debate with you about how you misread and/or misinterpreted another of my posts.

Sorry, not biting today.

 

[KatieG]

Who should watch out? Are you talking about me or the press or public??

I do find it ironic that so-called skeptics are unable to find fault in their favored choice. I started a whole thread on the topic--it's buried way down here somewhere lol--no one wanted to participate. There's a good reason politics is a topic people avoid when they want to avoid violence. There seems to be this innate inability to see the other side from another's perspective.

My problem with HRC has nothing to do with her being a life long politician (with extra sleaze), but knowing that this country, nay the world, will have to put up with 4-8 years of ALL CLINTON, HILL & BILL, all the damn time.

Yeah, it's gonna happen but it's not gonna be pretty.

 

[Maya22]

Is Jeb! Bush feeling the Bern?

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/jeb-and-bernie-sanders-supporters.jpg

 

[stanfr]

My problem with HRC has nothing to do with her being a life long politician (with extra sleaze), but knowing that this country, nay the world, will have to put up with 4-8 years of ALL CLINTON, HILL & BILL, all the damn time.

Yeah, it's gonna happen but it's not gonna pretty.

Yep, I hear you. As much as I disagree with both Trump's persona and policies, at least it would be new and unpredictable...I think that's one reason he is doing reasonably well despite the obvious drawbacks.

 

[stanfr]

You hear that, Stanf? Don't generalise!

Me? I'm sorrry...

Argumemnon, the two of us to think on different tracks. You never seem to follow the one I'm on and I don't see how you arrive on the tracks you go off on. I don't have the time or energy for yet another debate with you about how you misread and/or misinterpreted another of my posts.

Sorry, not biting today.

Huh. the points about hypocrisy and flip-flopping made sense to me...must be a 'man' thing...

 

[stanfr]

Apologizing for claiming I wouldn't and projecting your failure to post a link onto my shoulders would have been nicer.

I made a vow to never use the laughing dog...but man, Ginger, you sure push it!

Let me concise-up my position:

For women that give a rip about Trump's sexism, a female Veep is not going to make a lick of difference.

For people (including Trump) that deny his sexism, a female Veep helps their denial.

partly true, but a generalization There are subtle degrees of 'giving a rip' that you for some reason refuse to acknowlege.

As long as Clinton handles it right, we'll be fine. But she's up against the news media fluctuating between exposing Trump for the whack-job his is, and allowing him to appear reasonable with his phony claims.

So the liberal press that Republicans rail against is Hillary's biggest problem? I find that hard to swallow...

I don't know who advises her but recently she was suggesting Sanders concede. I would not approach it that way. She's being accused by the Trump camp of winning by corruption. Instead of saying anything about Sanders, all she needs to do is keep reminding people she has a wide lead in popular votes against both Sanders and Trump and that's with the GOP having a higher turnout than usual. That puts the emphasis on winning by votes and it's not necessary to address Sanders staying in or Trump's lies that she's winning because the system is corrupt. Let the audience draw the conclusions.

I agree with this. See how easy it is to get along when you don't pick a fight for the sake of picking a fight?

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon, the two of us to think on different tracks. You never seem to follow the one I'm on and I don't see how you arrive on the tracks you go off on.

Perhaps you're not making your case clear. The post I was responding to was not quoting anyone, so I assumed that you were responding to me. Make your points clear if you want me to address them properly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps you're not making your case clear. The post I was responding to was not quoting anyone, so I assumed that you were responding to me. Make your points clear if you want me to address them properly.

Here's an example: I named you, directly and you say since I didn't quote you you had to assume I was talking to you?

Here's another one. I pointed out to you I had already taken a comment back, IOW, said so a second time. Another forum member pointed out to you I had taken said comment back. When I ask you if you missed my edit (keep in mind now this has been commented on at least 3 separate times) your answer was, "I guess so. Which one?"

You call a clarification a flip-flop. How can I have any kind of discussion with you when all you want to address, is your initial misconception as is?

Yes, I could take the time to attempt to have a discussion. But my experience with you so far is it's very time consuming and unlikely to be productive.

 

[Belz...]

Here's an example: I named you, directly and you say since I didn't quote you you had to assume I was talking to you?

I'm sorry, what? We're still talking about this:

I supported my positions. I see you only asserted they were wrong.

Aren't we?

Otherwise, once more, you're not being clear about what you're saying.

You call a clarification a flip-flop.

No. I call changing your story a flip flop.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Who should watch out? Are you talking about me or the press or public??

I do find it ironic that so-called skeptics are unable to find fault in their favored choice. I started a whole thread on the topic--it's buried way down here somewhere lol--no one wanted to participate. There's a good reason politics is a topic people avoid when they want to avoid violence. There seems to be this innate inability to see the other side from another's perspective.

I was snearing at the usual no-win situation you get when you criticize a candidate for any reason even if you are thinking the choice overrides the negatives. Something you just experienced.

Nothing was actually aimed at you... btw... at least not in what i said

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... No. I call changing your story a flip flop.

What you don't seem to understand, and why I don't see the point in debating you on these issues is this:

I post something.

You misinterpret it.

I try again.

You can't seem to accept that you misinterpreted something. You can't have it both ways, claim I'm responsible for communicating my position then refuse to work toward understanding what I actually said/meant.

I'm not the only person you do it with.

 

[Belz...]

What you don't seem to understand, and why I don't see the point in debating you on these issues is this:

I post something.

You misinterpret it.

I try again.

Listen, Ginger. I've already demonstrated all this here:

A man, not all men.

Of course, "all men". The fact that you thought he was a man was the basis of your argument. Man, therefore you don't understand. That's the essence of generalisation, on top of being an ad hominem.

And yes, people who are not the target of sexism/racism etc., often don't understand the issue.

Irrelevant.

You seem to think that Trump can't win over voters because of his positions and comments; but if anything, his campaign has shown that he can do just that.

You implied that he _must_ be a man if he held opinion X. Now of course you say it wasn't all men but we can all read what you said.

Remember what I said about admitting your wrongs?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump don’t pull punches in Friday night Twitter fight

After Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Tuesday night with a big win in Indiana, Elizabeth Warren tore into his “toxic stew of hatred and insecurity” on Twitter and tweeted that he built his campaign on “racism, sexism, and xenophobia.”

It took three days, but Trump responded Friday night with strong language of his own...

Read more:
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/05/07/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-twitter-fight

Trump is right about Elizabeth Warren’s Native American problem

"Trump again uses Warren’s weak point to push back against her attacks.

"Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Native American is an issue that just won’t go away."

Read more:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/05/trump-is-right-about-elizabeth-warrens-native-american-problem/

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Is Jeb! Bush feeling the Bern?

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/jeb-and-bernie-sanders-supporters.jpg

"Kids, if I take this photo with you, will you clap for me?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...You implied that he _must_ be a man if he held opinion X. Now of course you say it wasn't all men but we can all read what you said....

If A then B.

If B does not mean then A.

Logic 101.