Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

Slowvehicle said:
In other words, you do not care to elucidate.

With how many "policies" of Clinton's are you actually familiar? Are you one of those who has no idea at all what POTUS can, and cannot (and may, and may not) do?

Are you hoping for a wall? For reneging on treaties? For unstable foreign trade and foreign relations? For a circus of personal lawsuits and countersuits? Or are you so taken by the "she whose thousand names the cats scream in hell's alleys" rhetoric that anything Trump's utter lack of business acumen, political savvy, and basic personal honesty/decency might cause, or allow, to happen would be better?
Click to expand...

I obviously do not support Trump either.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They need to stop thinking there is only one way to address the abortion issue. Passing a law against abortion did not work in the past and it won't work in the future.

If your goal is solely to have a law on the books, regardless if it is effective and and if an ineffective law is worth the tradeoff of having a mentally ill narcissist in the White House, ... hopefully that doesn't apply to very many people.

Use your head. If opposing abortion is the most important thing to you why not look for ways to actually decrease or end abortion besides an ineffective law against it.

In the meantime, voting for Trump is a very foolish thing to do.
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point about single-issue voters, no matter what their issue happened to be. It clarifies things immensely. Everything gets evaluated based on the important issue. The rest of us are left struggling with a larger suite to look over with no easy way to sum the calculation.

The same logic applies whether or not the single issue is abortion, gun rights, national defense, immigration, or, as we've seen in this thread, racism.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Can a policy be objectively wrong? I take it as a given we are all subjective.
Click to expand...

When I hear a blanket statement like "all of X's policies are wrong", I don't see subjectivity but groupthink or hidebound partisanship. (Partisanship, for the pedants can also mean simply being against something or someone.) Subjectivity would suggest that there must be SOMETHING out there that you and X could agree on.
 
Foolmewunz said:
When I hear a blanket statement like "all of X's policies are wrong", I don't see subjectivity but groupthink or hidebound partisanship. (Partisanship, for the pedants can also mean simply being against something or someone.) Subjectivity would suggest that there must be SOMETHING out there that you and X could agree on.
Click to expand...

You left off the one I actually am.... ideological extremist.
 
marplots said:
That was kind of my point about single-issue voters, no matter what their issue happened to be. It clarifies things immensely. Everything gets evaluated based on the important issue. The rest of us are left struggling with a larger suite to look over with no easy way to sum the calculation.

The same logic applies whether or not the single issue is abortion, gun rights, national defense, immigration, or, as we've seen in this thread, racism.
Click to expand...

What is your point? Single issue voters are not ignorant if they vote for Trump?

Your assumption is, having one important issue means you can't think logically, you can't think about anything except your one issue.

That's bull.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What is your point? Single issue voters are not ignorant if they vote for Trump?

Your assumption is, having one important issue means you can't think logically, you can't think about anything except your one issue.

That's bull.
Click to expand...

Really? I read as they are logical and it is easier for them to be logical.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What is your point? Single issue voters are not ignorant if they vote for Trump?

Your assumption is, having one important issue means you can't think logically, you can't think about anything except your one issue.

That's bull.
Click to expand...


And here I thought it was simply the definition of "single issue voter."

The logic is sound, it's the value ranking which gives the result. Logically, I should vote for the candidate who most closely holds the views I do. If I only have one topic of overwhelming importance, then that candidate's stance on that issue outweighs other considerations.

I suggest that "character flaws" are also a type of single issue, since I judge a person's character partially by how well their evaluations align with mine.

I don't see how any of this is controversial. If things didn't shake out along these lines, we'd all agree on which was the better candidate and the election would be a ho-hum foregone conclusion. The reason we don't agree is because we rank different qualities and issues differently. I can agree that candidate so-and-so supports policy X, but I vote for (or against them) based on how important policy X is to me.

How do you decide whom to vote for?
 
Spindrift said:
Wow! Getting rid of a horrible disease is less important than your fear of government.
Click to expand...

Anarchists don't think the government should exist at all. There is no point in having a political discussion with such people.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Really? I read as they are logical and it is easier for them to be logical.
Click to expand...
marplots said:
And here I thought it was simply the definition of "single issue voter."

The logic is sound, it's the value ranking which gives the result. Logically, I should vote for the candidate who most closely holds the views I do. If I only have one topic of overwhelming importance, then that candidate's stance on that issue outweighs other considerations.

I suggest that "character flaws" are also a type of single issue, since I judge a person's character partially by how well their evaluations align with mine.

I don't see how any of this is controversial. If things didn't shake out along these lines, we'd all agree on which was the better candidate and the election would be a ho-hum foregone conclusion. The reason we don't agree is because we rank different qualities and issues differently. I can agree that candidate so-and-so supports policy X, but I vote for (or against them) based on how important policy X is to me.

How do you decide whom to vote for?
Click to expand...

You both seem to think being a single issue voter means one can't evaluate anything but that issue. Nonsense.

Issue X can be the most important issue to you, it doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing Trump for the mentally ill narcissist he is and recognizing that is not a pro-choice vote, it is a fool's errand vote.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You both seem to think being a single issue voter means one can't evaluate anything but that issue. Nonsense.

Issue X can be the most important issue to you, it doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing Trump for the mentally ill narcissist he is and recognizing that is not a pro-choice vote, it is a fool's errand vote.
Click to expand...

Evaluating his ability to execute it would be part of single issue voting.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You both seem to think being a single issue voter means one can't evaluate anything but that issue. Nonsense.

Issue X can be the most important issue to you, it doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing Trump for the mentally ill narcissist he is and recognizing that is not a pro-choice vote, it is a fool's errand vote.
Click to expand...

But all you are saying is that "mentally ill narcissist" is a more important issue than abortion. It might be, might not. Abortion isn't my issue.

If you mean to say there is no True Scotsman, I have to agree. But it is a handy category, and I have chatted with people who answer every charge against a candidate (I think it was Huckabee) with something like, "That may be so, but he's against abortion..."

To be honest, I rather like the Brit system where you vote for a party instead of a person (at least that's how I understand it). At least that way we could (hopefully) set aside personalities and focus on agendas. It sometimes seems to me we've confused selecting a president with selecting America's Top Model or something.
 
Foolmewunz said:
And it's not just that the Clinton team does a better job of publicizing their events. THERE ARE NO SURROGATES OUT THERE ORGANIZING TRUMP-FREE FUNDRAISERS or rallies.
Click to expand...

Which is Exhibit #54098 that Trump doesn't give a **** about the GOP. Or movement conservatism. Or down ballot.
 
marplots said:
But all you are saying is that "mentally ill narcissist" is a more important issue than abortion. It might be, might not. Abortion isn't my issue....
Click to expand...

Two of mine are my immediate family's future, and the long-term prospects of human survival. They relate to Trump's promise to restart the AGW smokestacks, and to promote nuclear proliferation. These policies come wrapped in extreme nationalism with promises for trade wars, oh, something like what we had in the 1930s. That will give a nice tone to the run up to nuclear stockpiles! Finally, the "law-and-order" push, racist to the core in argument, would affect black family members and friends.

To support Donald Trump is to support these policies. There is no fig leaf for this. His supporters are certainly not worthy of respect, with the sole exceptions of the certifiably insane or moronic.
 
SezMe said:
Aw, c'mon. Nobody ever heard the phrase "cyber attack" until Trump cleverly thought it up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which debate was it when he went on and on about "cyber" and him knowing "cyber" and going to be ready to deal with it. (Or something like that. He lost me when it was obvious he had no idea what the term meant.)
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't know what he was thinking. Did he think if he played the heavy, if his campaign rhetoric was based mostly on the kinds of things middle-aged conservative white men tell each other in bars when they've had a few drinks, that somehow this would create a avalanche of support which he could ride right into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Click to expand...

None of the above. I still subscribe to the notion that he never expected or intended to go beyond some primaries. He'd get his name out there, build his brand reputation and sell a gazillion more Art of the Deal books. Once he was on top of the pile of Republican losers his ego wouldn't let him walk away. The snowball was then barrelling down the slope and even he lost control. I'm not sure when the idea for Trump TV and Bannon infected his brain but, based on the lackluster enthusiasm since Debate III, I think that is now all he really cares about. It's a way for him to stay in the entertainment biz which is where his ego gets stroked.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Which debate was it when he went on and on about "cyber" and him knowing "cyber" and going to be ready to deal with it. (Or something like that. He lost me when it was obvious he had no idea what the term meant.)
Click to expand...


He had you until then? :boggled:

J/K... a hundred million techheads around the world rolled their eyes (me too) when he stumbled his way through that one. :rolleyes:
 
Stacko said:
He opened himself to be being sued for defamation by calling them liars during his rant at the rally today. They can use the Access Hollywood tape as evidence against him should they decide to sue.
Click to expand...

I think a better piece of evidence that Don the Con is a liar is his absolute and blanket assertion in Debate III that "all" (literally, his word) of the claims were false. Several tens of millions of people can be called as witnesses. :) Those claimants who have independent, contemporaneous confirmation of sexual no-nos are going to be his downfall.

Will all the suits be civil or is there a chance criminal prosecution is in his future?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom