• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Trump fan, but I don't like poor arguments either. It's not like the guy doesn't have bushels of justified taint on him already.

Do people still read "The Scarlet Letter"?
 
Argumemnon said:
From that article:



I just love the journalistic standards of today.
Click to expand...

Two people is better than one. No one inside an active campaign is going to identify themselves for publication purposes, so much of the reporting is based on "a trusted source". Stating that two people reported it is sort of fact-checking without attribution.

But at this stage in a campaign these articles are expected to be speculative. The public expects some inkling of what's going on behind the scenes and the press/media delivers. As do the campaigns. This could be another head fake like the early campaign "inside sources' report" that Clinton was going to target Utah and Missouri. You head fake them that you're moving money off the advertising, which is KILLING HIM, and Donnie decides to buy forty million dollars worth of sparklers for his big important rallies and then you unload fifty million in ads in Operation Orange Crush, blanketing college and pro football and the MLB playoffs with ads of athletes laughing at Trump for his failed football league.

Or something like that....
 
Foolmewunz said:
Two people is better than one. No one inside an active campaign is going to identify themselves for publication purposes, so much of the reporting is based on "a trusted source". Stating that two people reported it is sort of fact-checking without attribution.
Click to expand...

My point was that, usually, they'd say "two insiders" or "two campaign managers" or somesuch. "Two people" sounds both lazy and deliberately vague.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah but usually you either name those people or explain what kind of people you're talking about. As written, it could be two random people at a gas station.
Click to expand...

No. The paragraph is on the subject of the plans of the PAC. Yes, it is possible for there to be subterfuge but I doubt the politics editor at the Times would approve that. He/She would've deleted the reference to the two sources if they weren't from within the group being discussed.

It's not like this sort of subterfuge is needed.
 
marplots said:
I'm not a Trump fan, but I don't like poor arguments either. It's not like the guy doesn't have bushels of justified taint on him already.

Do people still read "The Scarlet Letter"?
Click to expand...

I'm actually inclined to believe all of the worst things about Trump. I have little doubt that he is (or rather was) a sexual predator. I just don't think the video of him talking about it adds any information. Frankly, I think I've heard him say similar stuff on Howard Stern. He's an entertainer and a braggart, and he, like Howard Stern, has a tendency to say outrageous things for shock and entertainment value. Is he recounting actual truth? Probably, although likely in composite form. Is it a confession? No.

That being said, it's obviously very politically damaging. It has zero effect on my opinion, but I understand that it has a big one with that 20% of the electorate who is kind of flip-floppy between the two parties.
 
SezMe said:
I've seen this stated many times and I just don't get it. How did she enable Bill's philandering? What actions did she take to give him the green light? These are honest questions ... and try to be specifi.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

I would say that staying with him and aiding his defense by invoking the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" enabled the pattern of behavior to continue without consequences for quite some time.

I'll stipulate that marriages are complex and varied. But one thing that I think most have in common is vows. And the breaking of any vow says something about the perpetrator, as well as the party allowing it or excusing it. Simply staying with a cheater enables said cheating to continue unabated.

To be consistent, Trump's philandering - without apparent consequences - is equally wrong and was "enabled" by countless others, his wives almost certainly inclusive.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No. The paragraph is on the subject of the plans of the PAC. Yes, it is possible for there to be subterfuge but I doubt the politics editor at the Times would approve that. He/She would've deleted the reference to the two sources if they weren't from within the group being discussed.

It's not like this sort of subterfuge is needed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get the idea of subterfuge.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Fair point.

I would say that staying with him and aiding his defense by invoking the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" enabled the pattern of behavior to continue without consequences for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Just to be pedantic, it was a vast conspiracy, not a great conspiracy.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah but usually you either name those people or explain what kind of people you're talking about. As written, it could be two random people at a gas station.
Click to expand...

Well off the record it wouldn't give actual names. Usually they'll at least suggest what sort of relation the people have to the issue. I do agree that the way the article is worded, it could be any two people, but I'd err more on it being poorly written/edited.
 
Argumemnon said:
I'm not sure where you get the idea of subterfuge.
Click to expand...

It would be "subterfuge", Trump-style, if the sources were really "some people", as in his famous "some people are saying" accusations.

And I'd only make that demand on respected journals. I expect Infowars and Drudge and Breitbart to play such games. They do. I don't expect it of the Times, who have journalistic standards. To quote "two persons" in that paragraph, the subject of which is a specific PAC, is to connote that they are persons with that PAC. As I said, it's something a good editor, and I'll credit the Times with having good editors, would not have allowed.

So, yeah. By journalistic standards that would be subterfuge. You expect it of Infowars and Allo Police; not so much the Times and Le Devoir.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
Well off the record it wouldn't give actual names. Usually they'll at least suggest what sort of relation the people have to the issue. I do agree that the way the article is worded, it could be any two people, but I'd err more on it being poorly written/edited.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my initial impression as well. I wasn't arguing that those two people were actual random folks on the street.
 
Ugh. He's the worst person to ever become a major party nominee.

Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.

“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.

Trump, she recalled, said something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”

Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it “shocking” and “creepy.” The third said she was clothed and introduced herself to Trump.
Click to expand...

:covereyes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom