Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[catsmate]

At this point there is no doubt that Donald Trump is the single worst major party presidential candidate in living memory, almost certainly the worst since the Civil War, and arguably the worst in the history of this nation. He is boastful and ignorant and petty, disdainful of the Constitution, a racist and a sexist, the enabler of the worst elements of society, either the willing tool of, or the useful idiot for, Vladimir Putin, an admirer of despots, an insecure braggart, a sexual assaulter, a man who refuses to honor contracts, and a bore.

He is, in sum, just about the biggest ******* in all of the United States of America. He’s lucky that Syrian dictator Bashar Hafez al-Assad is out there keeping him from taking the global title, not that he wouldn’t try for that, too, should he become president. It’s appalling that he is the standard bearer for one of the two major political parties in the United States. It’s appalling that he is a candidate for the presidency at all.

But note well: Donald Trump is not a black swan, an unforeseen event erupting upon an unsuspecting Republican Party. He is the end result of conscious and deliberate choices by the GOP, going back decades, to demonize its opponents, to polarize and obstruct, to pursue policies that enfeeble the political weal and to yoke the bigot and the ignorant to their wagon and to drive them by dangling carrots that they only ever intended to feed to the rich. Trump’s road to the candidacy was laid down and paved by the Southern Strategy, by Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, by Fox News and the Tea Party, and by the smirking cynicism of three generations of GOP operatives, who have been fracking the white middle and working classes for years, crushing their fortunes with their social and economic policies, never imagining it would cause an earthquake.

More.

 

[Craig B]

Will your be providing actual evidence for this slanderous claim? Or is it just another example of desperate mud slinging.

If want examples of desperate mud slinging, the "Daily Mail" is the acknowledged world No 1 in that field of activity.

The black man claiming to be Bill Clinton's love child likens his treatment by the former first couple to the child of a master and SLAVE who is banished by the wife - Hillary Clinton​

The proof of paternity is, needless to say, that the claimant's mother was a prostitute and that Bill was her only white client at the relevant time. Who could argue with that?

 

[Darat]

Mrs President will sit on a throne made from 1000 assault rifles and a 1000 dead hands.

FTFY

 

[ddt]

A criticism of the Democratic primary process was that it heavily favored the establishment candidate, to the detriment of challengers. But the Republican process in some ways disfavored the establishment candidates, resulting in pretty much the most anti-establishment nominee imaginable. Subject for discussion: How could the Republican primary process be revised to prevent another Trump, but still allow a reasonable variety of challengers?

The democratisation of every step in the process doesn't help, either.

This.

There is virtually no filter on who is allowed to run as candidate for either main party in the US. Anyone can step up to the plate and declare "I'm a Republican" (or Democrat) and run for an office. So you get a presidential candidate like Trump who is egregiously unqualified (apart from other problems with him), or a senatorial candidate like David Duke, a white supremacist who was disavowed by the sitting Republican president.

In every other country I'm aware of, political parties have some vetting process for whom they allow to run as a candidate for office under their banner. For instance, in the recent UK elections for leadership of both main parties, the candidates had to get a minimum number of endorsements of sitting MPs to be able to compete. In the Netherlands, (nearly) all parties have a procedure where the board or a special vetting committee have to OK the candidacy of people who want to become the party's leader or even a candidate-MP. Such filters keep out both unqualified candidates as well as candidates who do not adhere to the core values of the party.

If you don't have such a filter, you end up with a conman running as your frontman and damaging your brand. That damage to your brand is entirely self-inflicted, as you didn't care to protect the brand in the first place.

 

[Tony Stark]

Hillary +9 in 4 way, +10 H2H in new Ohio poll.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/10/new_ohio_poll_puts_hillary_cli.html

Donald has to win Ohio to win the Presidency.

 

[marplots]

You act like that's the only evidence we have. How stupid is that?

It's 22.6% stupid. (Unless that was a rhetorical question?)

The real point is the inappropriate flipping of evidential roles. It's an interesting cognitive trick, see if you agree...

We started by watching the tape and making the claim that it is evidence of Trump's nefarious (maybe criminal) activities regarding women. The video is supposed to support the charge.

I made my case that Trump didn't say anything more than standard braggadocio and his usual hyperbole. I'm asserting such conversations are common enough and hence are not evidence of anything in particular, or at least actionable.

Now the trick come in. The claim is made that Trump has prior actions demonstrating his predatory practices, so we should take that into consideration when listening to the video. Suddenly, the video itself isn't evidence standing alone, but the prior acts are now the required evidence to make the judgement.

In other words, the original stipulation is being propped up, but only has to be propped up because it wasn't good evidence in the first place. Yet the video is retained and said to be further evidence of malfeasance.

Here's a simpler version of the logical flaw in play:
1) I found a gun in his house, therefore he's a criminal.
2) Yeah, but lots of people have guns in their houses. The gun doesn't distinguish between criminal and not.
3) Wait a moment. I found stolen goods in the house too.
4) OK, that's evidence of criminality.
5) And, don't forget, he had a gun!

The whole video kerfuffle only plays out the way you want if you go into it already believing certain things about Trump. It doesn't demonstrate those things. That was my point. If there is other evidence that Trump is a sexual predator, then that evidence has to be presented and stand on its own merits.

ETA: What ever happened to "cad", "bore", "lout", or even "dirty old man"? Have all the other descriptions for bad behavior been rolled up into "sexual predator" now?

 

[Stacko]

It's happening!

Poll: Trump falls into the with Clinton among Utah voters

This collapse with LDS voters will probably end up doing far more damage in Arizona and Nevada. This block is important to Republican majorities in Nevada and Arizona. It would be funny to see Egg McMuffin Evan McMullen steal Utah from the Orange Menace.

 

[Tony Stark]

[Url="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/donald-trump-gop.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0"[/url]Split Over Donald Trump Threatens to Tilt Republican States[/url]

Donald is at "dire risk" of losing Georgia according to internal GOP polling.

 

[Ladewig]

[Url="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/donald-trump-gop.html[/url]Split Over Donald Trump Threatens to Tilt Republican States[/url]

Donald is at "dire risk" of losing Georgia according to internal GOP polling.

Link doesn't work for me. Looks like a url tag problem.

 

[Tony Stark]

Link doesn't work for me. Looks like a url tag problem.

Sorry about that, I fixed it.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Link doesn't work for me. Looks like a url tag problem.

Repaired link:

Split Over Donald Trump Threatens to Tilt Republican States

Edit: bah, ninja'd.

 

[Crossbow]

Trump just told his followers at a rally in Florida to vote for him on November 28th.

I fully agree that every Trump supporter should go and vote on November 28th.

Wow!

A few months ago the Donald visited West Virginia shortly before our Primary Election Day and he told his supporters 'Not to bother to vote on Tuesday since the election is already won'.

By the next day he retracted that incredibly stupid statement.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's 22.6% stupid. (Unless that was a rhetorical question?)

The real point is the inappropriate flipping of evidential roles. It's an interesting cognitive trick, see if you agree...

We started by watching the tape and making the claim that it is evidence of Trump's nefarious (maybe criminal) activities regarding women. The video is supposed to support the charge.

I made my case that Trump didn't say anything more than standard braggadocio and his usual hyperbole. I'm asserting such conversations are common enough and hence are not evidence of anything in particular, or at least actionable.

Now the trick come in. The claim is made that Trump has prior actions demonstrating his predatory practices, so we should take that into consideration when listening to the video. Suddenly, the video itself isn't evidence standing alone, but the prior acts are now the required evidence to make the judgement.

In other words, the original stipulation is being propped up, but only has to be propped up because it wasn't good evidence in the first place. Yet the video is retained and said to be further evidence of malfeasance.

Here's a simpler version of the logical flaw in play:
1) I found a gun in his house, therefore he's a criminal.
2) Yeah, but lots of people have guns in their houses. The gun doesn't distinguish between criminal and not.
3) Wait a moment. I found stolen goods in the house too.
4) OK, that's evidence of criminality.
5) And, don't forget, he had a gun!

The whole video kerfuffle only plays out the way you want if you go into it already believing certain things about Trump. It doesn't demonstrate those things. That was my point. If there is other evidence that Trump is a sexual predator, then that evidence has to be presented and stand on its own merits.

Why do we need strained analogies. How plain wasn't what he said? Everyone has heard it a hundred thirteen times, now. The only question is whether one wishes to try to second guess that.

As I've said, it doesn't matter. If he's scratching, burping and spitting with the good old boys and talking about something they find acceptabe or admirable, whether it's dooring coons, stealing the rubber tips off crutches or grabbing some silly star-struck woman's crotch,.... It Is Something They Would Brag/Boast About, Ergo Something Which They Agree Is Just Fine.

I don't buy into any spinning of it. Either he intended to say it or he didn't. And unless he had a brain hemorrhage as he was speaking or is possessed by Satan, it's pretty apparent he meant to say it. True? False? Doesn't matter. He's impressed by it and expects young Billy to be more so. Locker room talk? Who cares? Do you have any respect for anyone who speaks like that in a locker room? When I was about 17 I used to play along with that kind of thing "to be one of the boys" but it's something I outgrew when I became an adult.

With the above in mind, you can then go looking for further verification or deniability. You don't need a strained gun-in-a-drawer vs stolen merchandise analogy. You've got a claim of being a degenerate vs a much earlier testimonial by a named individual that he's a degenerate and behaving in EXACTLY the fashion he self-describes on the bus.

ETA: What ever happened to "cad", "bore", "lout", or even "dirty old man"? Have all the other descriptions for bad behavior been rolled up into "sexual predator" now?

We've kind of grown up. Are you old enough to remember "funny uncles"? People kinda sorta know what you meant... except for the kids at the table. How cool was that? A quaint euphemism for kiddy diddler and you don't let the kids know it??!! I'm much happier with "paedophile", "sexual predator", etc...

And all those words have actual uses. Cad's far out of date, lout a little less so but also beyond its shelf life. Lout and dirty old man are still used. But none of them have the connotation of sexual assault/predator.

A cad? Doesn't give his escort a hundred note to tip the restroom attendant. Breaks off his engagement because he's found a richer partner. Rarely would be used for something as despicable as sexual assault.

A bore? Has nothing to do with "sexual predation".

A lout? To me only has a connotation of aggressive (not necessarily sexually) lower class person.

Dirty old man? Can simply mean a guy who dates younger women in some circles. Since my wife is twenty-eight years younger than me I'd prefer that the same term isn't used for someone who physically abuses women.

 

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I'm talking about an old dude bragging (talking ****) to a younger dude on a bus. I didn't understand it to be a confession of a crime.

The video describes to a T an incident previously reported. He did it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The video describes to a T an incident previously reported. He did it.

I don't think there is a way of convincing marplots. He's adding context to the bragging that isn't there; that the women DT's talking about wanted it.

 

[Belz...]

[Url="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/donald-trump-gop.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0"[/url]Split Over Donald Trump Threatens to Tilt Republican States[/url]

Donald is at "dire risk" of losing Georgia according to internal GOP polling.

From that article:

Mrs. Clinton now holds such a strong upper hand that Priorities USA, a “super PAC” backing her campaign, may direct some of its war chest into Senate races, two people said, and may begin broadcasting ads for those contests as soon as next week.

I just love the journalistic standards of today.

 

[marplots]

I don't think there is a way of convincing marplots. He's adding context to the bragging that isn't there; that the women DT's talking about wanted it.

That's what Trump said. That's what Trump thinks.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's 22.6% stupid. (Unless that was a rhetorical question?)

The real point is the inappropriate flipping of evidential roles. It's an interesting cognitive trick, see if you agree...

We started by watching the tape and making the claim that it is evidence of Trump's nefarious (maybe criminal) activities regarding women. The video is supposed to support the charge.

I made my case that Trump didn't say anything more than standard braggadocio and his usual hyperbole. I'm asserting such conversations are common enough and hence are not evidence of anything in particular, or at least actionable.

Now the trick come in. The claim is made that Trump has prior actions demonstrating his predatory practices, so we should take that into consideration when listening to the video. Suddenly, the video itself isn't evidence standing alone, but the prior acts are now the required evidence to make the judgement.

In other words, the original stipulation is being propped up, but only has to be propped up because it wasn't good evidence in the first place. Yet the video is retained and said to be further evidence of malfeasance.

Here's a simpler version of the logical flaw in play:
1) I found a gun in his house, therefore he's a criminal.
2) Yeah, but lots of people have guns in their houses. The gun doesn't distinguish between criminal and not.
3) Wait a moment. I found stolen goods in the house too.
4) OK, that's evidence of criminality.
5) And, don't forget, he had a gun!

The whole video kerfuffle only plays out the way you want if you go into it already believing certain things about Trump. It doesn't demonstrate those things. That was my point. If there is other evidence that Trump is a sexual predator, then that evidence has to be presented and stand on its own merits.

ETA: What ever happened to "cad", "bore", "lout", or even "dirty old man"? Have all the other descriptions for bad behavior been rolled up into "sexual predator" now?

Well said. There are times when I think that you and I are the only logical people contributing to this thread. Usually though, I think it's just me.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I just love the journalistic standards of today.

Well it depends on who those two people are. Could easily have been two people who would know and verified the stories off the record.

 

[Belz...]

Well said. There are times when I think that you and I are the only logical people contributing to this thread. Usually though, I think it's just me.

Translation: Phew! You agree with me and that makes me feel better. Remember: you're only rational as long as you agree with me.