Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[Upchurch]

You're completely begging the question.

...how?

By what strained definition is providing evidence that supports ones claim begging the question?

Logic. Anti-abortion people are against abortion because they think it's murder. Why should you relieve the accomplice (at the very least) to murder of responsibility for the murder? It's obviously nonsense.

That's not logic. It's speculation. Dr. Keith provided evidence. You provided guess work.

It could be revealing of the fact that he isn't actually anti-abortion.

Trump isn't anything for long. He takes whatever position is advantageous at the moment.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You're completely begging the question.



Logic. Anti-abortion people are against abortion because they think it's murder. Why should you relieve the accomplice (at the very least) to murder of responsibility for the murder? It's obviously nonsense. Sure, you could argue there might be mitigating factors, if emotional distress was involved, or genuine fear of physical harm, but you would still expect an accomplice to murder would be held accountable under criminal law. And I already pointed out the most persuasive argument in favor of my view. To wit, a woman who murders her newborn baby will be charged with murder. There is little to distinguish a newborn baby from a fetus if you honestly believe that a fetus is a human being.

Your entire argument is that the Pro-Life lobby lies about its intentions. That is pretty hand wavy of you.

Look, I'm not going to tease out their arguments, because I find them lacking in logic and often repulsive, but they have a whole plank based on abortion is abuse of women and that the women are victims in this procedure as much as the children. They are very clear about not wanting to punish women beyond making it illegal for anyone to perform this procedure. They are not proposing any laws that would make the women criminals. And if you want to posit that this is political posturing that is fine, but man your argument requires a lot of very consistent lying.

It could be revealing of the fact that he isn't actually anti-abortion. George W. Bush also committed such a gaffe, as when he responded to a hypothetical question, about one of his daughters getting pregnant and wanting an abortion, by saying that he would leave the choice up to her. Sometimes it's not ignorance so much as an inability to act ("act" in the sense of an actor playing a role).

I agree. You could limit it to just him lying again, and not being very convincing at it again.

I think it shows a deeper contempt of complex issues and his unwillingness to delve beyond the surface. But feel free to disagree.

 

[sunmaster14]

...how?

By what strained definition is providing evidence that supports ones claim begging the question?

I'm really tired of explaining stuff to you. Perhaps Dr. Keith will waste his time to do it, since I'm pretty sure he understands it.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm really tired of explaining stuff to you.

Do get tired of something, you'd have to actually do it. The problem is, you don't actually know all that much about critical thinking or logical fallacies, so you can't really explain anything.

This is a case in point.

 

[sunmaster14]

Do get tired of something, you'd have to actually do it. The problem is, you don't actually know all that much about critical thinking or logical fallacies, so you can't really explain anything.

This is a case in point.

LOL. How pathetic.

 

[Bob001]

....
Logic. Anti-abortion people are against abortion because they think it's murder. Why should you relieve the accomplice (at the very least) to murder of responsibility for the murder? It's obviously nonsense.
....

People who are pro-choice recognize it as nonsense. But the pro-life side seems to think that a woman who has an abortion is actually a victim who wouldn't have had an abortion unless someone else made her want one.
http://marchforlife.org/no-pro-life-american/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/opinion/campaign-stops/abortion-and-punishment.html?_r=0

 

[Dr. Keith]

People who are pro-choice recognize it as nonsense. But the pro-life side seems to think that a woman who has an abortion is actually a victim who wouldn't have had an abortion unless someone else made her want one.
http://marchforlife.org/no-pro-life-american/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/opinion/campaign-stops/abortion-and-punishment.html?_r=0

Right. It isn't logical, it is pro-life logic.

I can't explain it, but I've heard it espoused with such passion that I have a hard time dismissing it as group lying.

 

[sunmaster14]

People who are pro-choice recognize it as nonsense. But the pro-life side seems to think that a woman who has an abortion is actually a victim who wouldn't have had an abortion unless someone else made her want one.
http://marchforlife.org/no-pro-life-american/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/opinion/campaign-stops/abortion-and-punishment.html?_r=0

This debate is getting surreal, but I'm game. Say abortion has been made illegal, and a woman induces an abortion using a wire hangar, or perhaps by overdosing on alcohol or some other over-the-counter and legal drug. Who victimized her? Has a crime been committed? If so, who has committed it?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Some time back in the 80's, the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston put on an exhibit which comprised a huge hydraulic press set against opposing walls of the building, and connected to the turnstile at the entrance such that every time a patron entered the museum, the press would move an increment outward.

I remember a piece where a rifle was aimed at a chair, with a timer to fire it at some random time in a time certain. 1,000 years?

The point was to have those willing to sit in the chair get an intimation of their own mortality.

 

[Bob001]

This debate is getting surreal, but I'm game. Say abortion has been made illegal, and a woman induces an abortion using a wire hangar, or perhaps by overdosing on alcohol or some other over-the-counter and legal drug. Who victimized her? Has a crime been committed? If so, who has committed it?

Are you asking me? I'm strongly pro-choice. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the pro-life crowd attributed temporary insanity to a woman in that circumstance, victimized by the evil, irresponsible man who impregnated her.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This debate is getting surreal, but I'm game. Say abortion has been made illegal, and a woman induces an abortion using a wire hangar, or perhaps by overdosing on alcohol or some other over-the-counter and legal drug. Who victimized her? Has a crime been committed? If so, who has committed it?

Really, we are not saying it is logical, we are saying it is their stance. It is the position they have taken and you have no evidence that they are disingenuous. Nearly half the country is pro-life, surely there is some major pro-life group that honestly believes what you say logic dictates, but I've not seen them.

 

[CapelDodger]

A hell of a lot more than what Hillary says.

Why do you believe anything he says? You know he lies without compunction; you know he wants your vote; you know he's promising you things to get it. This behaviour is so typical of him that there is no earthly reason to think he means a word of it. There's no reason to think he won't simply deny saying any of it - that's something else typical of him.

He speaks from the heart with a lot of passion, sure he gets things wrong, but he's a novice, he'll get better.

He lies constantly and only feels passion for himself.

If Hillary wasn't so sick, she might speak with a little more passion. That's how she used to be, oh wait.

Hillary Clinton is not and can never be a demagogue - which is what you want, and find in Trump.

 

[CapelDodger]

You're completely begging the question.

You should look that up.

Logic.

So on the one hand there are documented statements of belief and policy, which you don't want to believe, and on the other your attempt to justify not believing it.

I'll go with the former myself.

 

[sunmaster14]

You should look that up.

So on the one hand there are documented statements of belief and policy, which you don't want to believe, and on the other your attempt to justify not believing it.

I'll go with the former myself.

It's so funny that some of the liberals who are so quick to call conservatives evil liars about, well, pretty much everything, are, on the one issue where it's abundantly obvious that the mainstream conservative line is disingenuous for wholly political reasons, they claim to take them at their word. Methinks that some of you are being a mite inconsistent. I suspect that if you're pro-choice you have, at some point in the past, argued (or at least believed) that pro-abortion people don't really care about women. It's really quite interesting to see such intellectual dishonesty on display.

 

[beren]

It's so funny that some of the liberals who are so quick to call conservatives evil liars about, well, pretty much everything, are, on the one issue where it's abundantly obvious that the mainstream conservative line is disingenuous for wholly political reasons, they claim to take them at their word. Methinks that some of you are being a mite inconsistent. I suspect that if you're pro-choice you have, at some point in the past, argued (or at least believed) that pro-abortion people don't really care about women. It's really quite interesting to see such intellectual dishonesty on display.

Your last sentence is on point. Read it out loud to yourself.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's so funny that some of the liberals who are so quick to call conservatives evil liars about, well, pretty much everything, are, on the one issue where it's abundantly obvious that the mainstream conservative line is disingenuous for wholly political reasons, they claim to take them at their word. Methinks that some of you are being a mite inconsistent. I suspect that if you're pro-choice you have, at some point in the past, argued (or at least believed) that pro-abortion people don't really care about women. It's really quite interesting to see such intellectual dishonesty on display.

You are right, I don't think pro-life people really do care much about women. But, I also think that they sincerely believe that they do. I also believe that they sincerely believe that women are victims in an abortion and should not be punished even if abortions are made illegal.

The thing is that you can pretty reliably find a leak when a group tries to lie on a large scale. My state recently tried to say abortions had to be in hospitals to protect the women, but there was plenty of back room talking about this being a work around to make abortion less accessible. There was also a logical attack based on the fact that giving birth is a more dangerous event for the mother than having an abortion, and they were not requiring that births be performed in hospitals, but that would not have had as much impact without the leaks.

I really do think that most pro-lifers are not in favor of punishing women even if abortion is made illegal. And if that is logically inconsistent with being pro-life, they are fine with that. Logic be damned.

 

[Sabrina]

Moving on to another topic, how about this Newsweek article?

Some key excerpts:

Throughout this campaign, the Trump Organization, which pumps potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into the Trump family’s bank accounts each year, has been largely ignored. As a private enterprise, its businesses, partners and investors are hidden from public view, even though they are the very people who could be enriched by—or will further enrich—Trump and his family if he wins the presidency.

A close examination by Newsweek of the Trump Organization, including confidential interviews with business executives and some of its international partners, reveals an enterprise with deep ties to global financiers, foreign politicians and even criminals, although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities. It also reveals a web of contractual entanglements that could not be just canceled. If Trump moves into the White House and his family continues to receive any benefit from the company, during or even after his presidency, almost every foreign policy decision he makes will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.

The Trump Organization is not like the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the charitable enterprise that has been the subject of intense scrutiny about possible conflicts for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton bestowed benefits on contributors to the foundation in some sort of “pay to play” scandal when she was secretary of state, but that makes no sense because there was no “pay.” Money contributed to the foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation’s tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton “slush fund.”) No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free.
On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign entities in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.) Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas entities, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.

Trump’s business conflicts with America’s national security interests cannot be resolved so long as he or any member of his family maintains a financial interest in the Trump Organization during a Trump administration, or even if they leave open the possibility of returning to the company later. The Trump Organization cannot be placed into a blind trust, an arrangement used by many politicians to prevent them from knowing their financial interests; the Trump family is already aware of who their overseas partners are and could easily learn about any new ones.

And that's just from the first section. The article goes on to detail numerous business dealings Trump's organization has overseas that would represent potential national security and foreign policy conflicts, and yet all anyone can talk about is the supposed Clinton Foundation "pay for play" "scandal" that, when you actually examine the facts, doesn't exist in the slightest. Tell me, all you Trump supporters on the forum here; how exactly do you excuse this clear evidence of the Trump Organization being a major foreign policy and national security issue should Trump become President (FSM, Cthulu, and zombie baby Jesus forbid)? What do you think Trump will do with his foundation should such a horrible event as his election take place? He can't divest himself of it easily, and yet it represents a clear conflict of interest with being the President of the United States, a conflict no President can afford. How do you think Trump will deal with this particular revelation, assuming the news media can stop kissing his ass and actually cover some legitimate news for once?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You realize this concept is a Democratic/liberal one don't you?

It's good to see Trump appropriating some Democratic Party policies.

I can't decide if I'm baffled or amused when people like logger, who incessantly bitch and moan about "liberals", point out a liberal position from a conservative candidate in an attempt to entice liberals to vote for said conservative.

 

[Stacko]

I can't decide if I'm baffled or amused when people like logger, who incessantly bitch and moan about "liberals", point out a liberal position from a conservative candidate in an attempt to entice liberals to vote for said conservative.

[IMGw=640]http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/rfstack/000000_46.jpg[/IMGw]

It's sports to them. There's no attempt to advance ideas just a desire to win regardless of consequences.

 

[Civet]

Moving on to another topic, how about this Newsweek article?

Some key excerpts:


And that's just from the first section. The article goes on to detail numerous business dealings Trump's organization has overseas that would represent potential national security and foreign policy conflicts, and yet all anyone can talk about is the supposed Clinton Foundation "pay for play" "scandal" that, when you actually examine the facts, doesn't exist in the slightest. Tell me, all you Trump supporters on the forum here; how exactly do you excuse this clear evidence of the Trump Organization being a major foreign policy and national security issue should Trump become President (FSM, Cthulu, and zombie baby Jesus forbid)? What do you think Trump will do with his foundation should such a horrible event as his election take place? He can't divest himself of it easily, and yet it represents a clear conflict of interest with being the President of the United States, a conflict no President can afford. How do you think Trump will deal with this particular revelation, assuming the news media can stop kissing his ass and actually cover some legitimate news for once?

If I was was a Trump supporter, I'd point out that he was willing to adopt an anti-Muslim stance even though it endangered his financial ties with the Muslim world and claim that this made him a man of principle. I'd just ignore any of the other problems raised in the article and repeat this one point any time the issue came up.