Presidential Primaries 2016

[DavidJames]

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/

Small minds are only able to concentrate on small issues.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Warren’s Twitter tantrum ratchets up the rhetoric

Tuesday morning, as Trump celebrated his victory in the Indiana primary clinching the Republican nomination, Warren greeted him with a vicious Twitter salvo.

What was she thinking?

Friday night, Trump returned fire.

“I hope corrupt Hillary Clinton chooses goofy Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. I will defeat them both,” Trump taunted.

And then he went there: “Let’s properly check goofy Elizabeth Warren’s records to see if she is Native American. I say she’s a fraud!”

And stayed there: “Goofy Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton’s flunky, has a career that is totally based on a lie. She is not Native American.”

This is bad for the progressive darling of the left. Trump is immune to insults. That’s not to say that he is disciplined enough to absorb them and stay on message because he’s not. But he’s not afraid of the substance of any attack.

Warren, on the other hand, has to be petrified about her “Indian problem,” and now she’s made her Native American fabrication national. Her awkward attempts to explain it away will strike voters as “incoherent” at best, and prevaricating at worst.

Now Liz Warren is at risk of becoming the latest political trophy on Trump’s mantel, alongside “Low-Energy Jeb,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco” and “Crooked Hillary.”

Make room for “Goofy Liz.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co...en_s_twitter_tantrum_ratchets_up_the_rhetoric

Trump's latest roadkill: "Goofy Liz"

 

[Belz...]

If A then B.

If B does not mean then A.

Logic 101.

That would be a good counter if I had made such a claim.

Regardless of what you say, you associated "man" with "believing that Trump can win over more than a minority of hard right females". Apparently only a man could possibly think this. But not all males, no. Never mind that I didn't say you said "all males". I accused you of making a sexist statement.

Are you going to address this at some point?

 

[stanfr]

If A then B.

If B does not mean then A.

Logic 101.

The logic is simple enough--but for your logical statement to qualify, you would have to first demonstrate that the 30% (give or take) of American women who rate Trump favorably are "hard right".
Otherwise If A then B is demonstrably false, and your 'logic' fails.
Good luck!

ETA: and if you maintain that the statement is 'True', than that's just another No True Scotsman fallacy--in any event, your logic is faulty, and as Argumemnon points out, it's also still sexist...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That would be a good counter if I had made such a claim.

You are making that claim.

If A (blind to Trump's sexism) then B (must be a guy, or at least it's a darn good bet)

If B (a guy) then not necessarily A (blind to Trump's sexism).

What does being a man have to do with not understanding the issue? Isn't that sexist?

It's very likely that people who have not experienced racism or sexism don't recognize it. I've seen it my whole life. Trump is so blatantly sexist the only possible reason for someone not to see it is if they haven't experienced it. And that pretty much means a guy.

Regardless of what you say, you associated "man" with "believing that Trump can win over more than a minority of hard right females". Apparently only a man could possibly think this. But not all males, no. Never mind that I didn't say you said "all males". I accused you of making a sexist statement.

Are you going to address this at some point?

And here's where you go off the rail changing what I actually said into something else.

You left off: "Trump's sexism is so blatant," which changes the sentence. Now instead of my saying, if you miss the sexism you must be a guy, you read it wrongly as, if you think [...] you must be a guy.

And when I explain to you that you've left a key phrase out of your 'paraphrase' changing the context of my comment, you stick with your misinterpretation.

Rinse lather repeat.


If you want to discuss the actual thing I said some guys don't get it, let's start here:

Are you seriously trying to argue Trump isn't one of the most blatant sexists you've ever seen? We're not talking subtle here. There is no maybe about it.

Here's all the sexist things that Donald Trump has ever said Actually, it's not possible to list everything sexist he's ever said, the list would be a lifetime of his comments.

Donald Trump doesn't understand what 'sexism' is

Donald Trump sexism tracker: Everything you need to know, in one place

Yes, this man is running for American President. Follow Telegraph Wonder Women's log of Trump sexism, which we'll update everytime he makes a vile comment.

And if not, if you want to go on and on and on and on about your misinterpretation changing the key point of my sentence... I'm not interested.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The logic is simple enough--but for your logical statement to qualify, you would have to first demonstrate that the 30% (give or take) of American women who rate Trump favorably are "hard right".
Otherwise If A then B is demonstrably false, and your 'logic' fails.
Good luck!

ETA: and if you maintain that the statement is 'True', than that's just another No True Scotsman fallacy--in any event, your logic is faulty, and as Argumemnon points out, it's also still sexist...

You too are changing my sentence. See the above post.

 

[stanfr]

You are making that claim.

If A (blind to Trump's sexism) then B (must be a guy, or at least it's a darn good bet)If B (a guy) then not necessarily A (blind to Trump's sexism).

That's called changing your original statement--which is what you are claiming that we are doing....sigh.

It's very likely that people who have not experienced racism or sexism don't recognize it. I've seen it my whole life. Trump is so blatantly sexist the only possible reason for someone not to see it is if they haven't experienced it. And that pretty much means a guy.

Way to go on doubling down, Ginger!

So...according to you, all women have experienced sexism. But some men have not. Never. Ever. Degrees of same don't matter...

f you want to discuss the actual thing I said some guys don't get it, let's start here:

Irrelevant. The relevant part, which you still refuse to address, is whether all the current and/or potential female Trump supporters are "hard right" Care to comment??

 

[uke2se]

Irrelevant. The relevant part, which you still refuse to address, is whether all the current and/or potential female Trump supporters are "hard right" Care to comment??

In my view, all of the current female Trump supporters are stupid and/or insane.

For the record, that goes for the men as well.

 

[stanfr]

In my view, all of the current female Trump supporters are stupid and/or insane.

For the record, that goes for the men as well.

I think you should add "ignorant"--you could support Trump if all you knew about him is what you saw on The Apprentice. Of course, that is becoming less of an excuse as the process continues...

 

[uke2se]

I think you should add "ignorant"--you could support Trump if all you knew about him is what you saw on The Apprentice. Of course, that is becoming less of an excuse as the process continues...

No, I'd say that fits into the 'stupid' category.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

In my view, all of the current female Trump supporters are stupid and/or insane.

For the record, that goes for the men as well.

On top of that, they are also "lazy, TV watching drunks," as former Mexican President Vicente Fox recently noted.

That one's my favorite.

 

[uke2se]

On top of that, they are also "lazy, TV watching drunks," as former Mexican President Vicente Fox recently noted.

That one's my favorite.

I wouldn't go that far. Not all of them are lazy, TV watching drunks. All of them are stupid and/or insane though.

 

[stanfr]

No, I'd say that fits into the 'stupid' category.

Well, no, if you were living in a cave you could still be a genius--just uninformed.

Seriously, though, I have to disagree with your statement. I understand where it is coming from though, and can sympathize. But it's illogical, and frankly the kind of statement that this forum exists to weed out and hopefully eliminate from people's thought processes. I have a couple friends who are big Trump supporters. Do I think they are stupid or insane? No. They are actually quite intelligent and lucid. I do not know why they are able to give him a pass on what I see are clear examples of what Ginger points out--racist, sexist, xenophobic statements and beliefs, not to mention truly dangerous policies like banning religious groups or putting the country in bankruptcy. But I'm not a psychologist--so I'm at a disadvantage there. People throw their support for different personal reasons and their own internal logic--whether you agree with them or not does not make them insane and/or stupid. If you really feel that way--IMHO that gives you some of the same bad qualities that Trump shares.

 

[uke2se]

Well, no, if you were living in a cave you could still be a genius--just uninformed.

Seriously, though, I have to disagree with your statement. I understand where it is coming from though, and can sympathize. But it's illogical, and frankly the kind of statement that this forum exists to weed out and hopefully eliminate from people's thought processes. I have a couple friends who are big Trump supporters. Do I think they are stupid or insane? No. They are actually quite intelligent and lucid. I do not know why they are able to give him a pass on what I see are clear examples of what Ginger points out--racist, sexist, xenophobic statements and beliefs, not to mention truly dangerous policies like banning religious groups or putting the country in bankruptcy. But I'm not a psychologist--so I'm at a disadvantage there. People throw their support for different personal reasons and their own internal logic--whether you agree with them or not does not make them insane and/or stupid. If you really feel that way--IMHO that gives you some of the same bad qualities that Trump shares.

Ok, let's say that they stop thinking when it comes to politics. I would categorize it as a subset of stupidity. A person might be a educated intellectual when it comes to specific fields, but completely bonkers when it comes to politics. We've seen it many times with woos coming to these boards, possessing PhDs in various subjects and then uttering complete lunacy. I'm willing to bet many of them are Trump voters.

Then we have the roughly half of the population below average intelligence. I'd say we have a good chance of finding 90 to 95 percent of Trump voters there.

 

[Belz...]

You are making that claim.

Yes and your "not all men" didn't address it.

It's very likely that people who have not experienced racism or sexism don't recognize it.

Let me see if I understand your "logic": It's very likely that people who have not experienced sexism don't recognise it. Men don't experience sexism, therefore they "very likely" don't recognise it. Ergo, if you don't recognise it, you are a man.

First of all, your claim quoted above is both unevidenced and weasely-worded (very likely). Second, men often do experience sexism, despite what intersectional feminists would like you to believe. Third, your conclusion does not follow from the premises, since you have not established that people who have experienced sexism will recognise it. It also does not explain why some women support Trump. And fourth, it actually doesn't address the original claim, is that Trump may manage to draw in more people to support him. Saying that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't recognise Trump's sexism; it only means that other people might not, or that it might be less important to them than other things.

 

[Belz...]

In my view, all of the current female Trump supporters are stupid and/or insane.

For the record, that goes for the men as well.

I think that this is exactly the sort of thinking that has allowed Trump to succeed: it underestimates both Trump and his supporters.

It'd be better to seek to understand why they support him.

Ok, let's say that they stop thinking when it comes to politics.

Or, maybe, and bear with me on this, they just don't think like you.

 

[uke2se]

I think that this is exactly the sort of thinking that has allowed Trump to succeed: it underestimates both Trump and his supporters.

It'd be better to seek to understand why they support him.

I'm not underestimating them. I'm scared crapless of them, precisely because they are many and utterly bonkers. It's an army of woos.

 

[uke2se]

Or, maybe, and bear with me on this, they just don't think like you.

They don't think. There's plenty of room for disagreement. Reality denial don't fit in, and Trump's supporters deny objective reality. And I'm not even talking about religion or science.

 

[stanfr]

I think that this is exactly the sort of thinking that has allowed Trump to succeed: it underestimates both Trump and his supporters.

It'd be better to seek to understand why they support him.



Or, maybe, and bear with me on this, they just don't think like you.

^ This

 

[stanfr]

They don't think. There's plenty of room for disagreement. Reality denial don't fit in, and Trump's supporters deny objective reality. And I'm not even talking about religion or science.

A rather blanket statement...