Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP
Comments
-
That is the line that the corporate Democrats like Clinton and the party leadership keep trotting out for sure. It is an opinion but that is all it is an opinion.
I don't see how somebody could reasonably be of the opinion that negative campaigning could be affecting someone's poll numbers in the primaries but it won't have any impact in the general election.0 -
Suryavarman wrote: »I don't see how somebody could reasonably be of the opinion that negative campaigning could be affecting someone's poll numbers in the primaries but it won't have any impact in the general election.
Negative campaigning is par for the course in US politics. There is way more then enough of it to go round.0 -
-
Sanders supporters: Spending ages giving out about how super delegates are undemocratic and should be removed followed by giving out that they don't save Sanders when they don't get more votes than Hillary.
Sanders can beat Trump in all the polls he likes but he hasn't won at the ballot box (especially when there is a ballot box unlike a caucus, wonder why there haven't been calls to remove them given they against democratic best practise)
Edit: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/11/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-superdelegates/80232994/
Since I should have a link here is Sanders supporters saying that the superdelegates should follow the will of the voters in February (which would be Hillary for the most part). You can find segment to of his support calling for bans on it if needs be but I think that covers the point that Sanders supporters are changing their minds on what a superdelegates should vote based on.0 -
CNN showed the Fox News poll and the previous polls for Fox news poll which had both Clinton and Sanders ahead before the latest, which still has Sanders ahead as posted earlier and Clinton is lagging, which was the poll CNN used.
Now on to today, I just can't stand Hillary Clinton. She gave an interview to CNN, she talks about Trump not being qualified to be president as if she proved she is qualified, talking about Bin Laden, strangely she always seems to forget the absolute disaster she helped create in North Africa and the Middle East, which if anything shows she is even less qualified to lead a country.
I think Trump will beat her as he will get it into people's head that it was actions that Clinton supported that has made terrorism a bigger problem. There seems to be more terrorism now and it also appears during the presidency of Obama to be getting increasingly worse.
Then with the economy, will people want the same old approach or something new?
Clinton will be a target for her Goldman Sachs speeches which she seems afraid to make public.
Trump will become moderate and I can't see Clinton becoming more popular. Trump has charisma which is something Hillary lacks. Charisma can help change opinions of people. Sanders has charisma, Hillary can appear smug telling people that Trump is not qualified and how she has experience as if the experience was positive.
I think a lot of people would argue John Kerry has been a calmer influence as the Secretary of State than Hillary who was a disaster.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think your spot on.CNN showed the Fox News poll and the previous polls for Fox news poll which had both Clinton and Sanders ahead before the latest, which still has Sanders ahead as posted earlier and Clinton is lagging, which was the poll CNN used.
Now on to today, I just can't stand Hillary Clinton. She gave an interview to CNN, she talks about Trump not being qualified to be president as if she proved she is qualified, talking about Bin Laden, strangely she always seems to forget the absolute disaster she helped create in North Africa and the Middle East, which if anything shows she is even less qualified to lead a country.
I think Trump will beat her as he will get it into people's head that it was actions that Clinton supported that has made terrorism a bigger problem. There seems to be more terrorism now and it also appears during the presidency of Obama to be getting increasingly worse.
Then with the economy, will people want the same old approach or something new?
Clinton will be a target for her Goldman Sachs speeches which she seems afraid to make public.
Trump will become moderate and I can't see Clinton becoming more popular. Trump has charisma which is something Hillary lacks. Charisma can help change opinions of people. Sanders has charisma, Hillary can appear smug telling people that Trump is not qualified and how she has experience as if the experience was positive.
I think a lot of people would argue John Kerry has been a calmer influence as the Secretary of State than Hillary who was a disaster.
Trump can, and will, become more moderate, but Hillary will never become popular.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,270 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36410
Recent national polls for Sanders vs Trump:
Poll | Taken | Sanders | Trump
CBS/NYT | 13-17 May | 51 | 38
Fox News | 14-17 May | 46 | 42
PPP | 6-9 May | 50 | 39
CNN/ORC | 28 Apr-1 May | 56 | 40
IBD/TIPP | 22-28 Apr | 50 | 38
USA/Suffolk | 20-24 Apr | 52 | 37
GWU/Battleground | 17-20 Apr | 50 | 40
If there is any merit to the 7 different (above) national polls, they suggest that Sanders clearly leads Trump today, often by double digits. In comparison, the Clinton vs Trump recent national polls are very close, suggesting that they are too close to call today. Once again, if Clinton was smart enough to woo Sanders into being her Vice President running mate, that would unify the larger Democratic party, as well as potentially draw in the large number of independent voters loyal to Sanders for a Clinton-Sanders win 8 November 2016. But Clinton is not that smart.0 -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/19/trump-wastes-no-time-in-blaming-terrorism-for-egyptair-crash/
The mainstream media still proceeding with their failed methods of attack against Trump on foreign policy, this false Trudeauean narrative of "if you kill your enemies, they win".0 -
The negative campaigning from the so called 'liberal' media is because they're trying to railroad Hillary to the democratic nomination. If Sanders was to become the nominee then the question is, would the likes of CNN, the NY Times, CNBC etc switch to supporting Trump, or would they (reluctantly) support SandersSuryavarman wrote: »I don't see how somebody could reasonably be of the opinion that negative campaigning could be affecting someone's poll numbers in the primaries but it won't have any impact in the general election.0 -
JPNelsforearm wrote: »The mainstream media still proceeding with their failed methods of attack against Trump on foreign policy...
Do you have a reasoned critique of the article, or are you just reflexively criticising it because it criticises your idol?0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Do you have a reasoned critique of the article, or are you just reflexively criticising it because it criticises your idol?
How do you critique an attack piece that leads with even when Trump is right he is wrong because, ugh, he is Donald Trump
Immediately, knocking it out of the park, what headline.
Thereafter follows the usual lines Trumps solutions are no solutions, experts agree", ignoring the fact that under the very same "experts" and "veteran political leadership" terrorist attacks and crime is rising exponentially.
Do I think Trump has all the answer and he is some polymath who will turn water into wine? No, but the sneering coverage, and all it is, is sneering, is a facade, no original thought, a parroting of tired memes/liberal soundbites.
Why are airlines being blown out of the sky? Does the piece answer that? No. Does it mention Islam? No
He sets up a bunch of Trump strawmen based on this tweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/733242745385537536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
He extrapolates 400 words, 2,400 characters out of Trumps 22 word 139 character tweet, and proceeds to argue against himself. Its an article as nonsensical as its headline suggests.0 -
JPNelsforearm wrote: »How do you critique an attack piece that leads with even when Trump is right he is wrong because, ugh, he is Donald Trump
Immediately, knocking it out of the park, what headline.
Thereafter follows the usual lines Trumps solutions are no solutions, experts agree", ignoring the fact that under the very same "experts" and "veteran political leadership" terrorist attacks and crime is rising exponentially.
Do I think Trump has all the answer and he is some polymath who will turn water into wine? No, but the sneering coverage, and all it is, is sneering, is a facade, no original thought, a parroting of tired memes/liberal soundbites.
Why are airlines being blown out of the sky? Does the piece answer that? No. Does it mention Islam? No
He sets up a bunch of Trump strawmen based on this tweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/733242745385537536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
He extrapolates 400 words, 2,400 characters out of Trumps 22 word 139 character tweet, and proceeds to argue against himself. Its an article as nonsensical as its headline suggests.
Which Trump foreign policy do you support, the one where he stays out of conflicts, or the one where he threatens Mexico with military and economic sanctions if they don't pay for his stupid wall, or the one where he proposes bombing and torturing the families of terrorists?0 -
Well, you start by discussing the headline, not your misinterpretation of it.JPNelsforearm wrote: »How do you critique an attack piece that leads with even when Trump is right he is wrong because, ugh, he is Donald Trump
The point of the article - which you either haven't read, or your amygdala translated it into something completely different from what it actually said while you scanned it - is not that Trump is wrong just because he's Trump; it's that it was wrong of Trump to start mouthing off about terrorism before we even know what happened to the flight. In this, the article is 100% correct.Thereafter follows the usual lines Trumps solutions are no solutions, experts agree", ignoring the fact that under the very same "experts" and "veteran political leadership" terrorist attacks and crime is rising exponentially.
Now, it's quite likely (but far from certain) that it will turn out to have been a terrorist attack. Doubtless, this will cement your view that the Donald is some sort of prescient genius.
The problem is that you think Trump is right because you agree with his conclusions, and therefore it makes no difference to you how he arrived at them. It doesn't matter whether or not this plane was downed by terrorism; Trump used it as an excuse to have a vaguely-worded passive-aggressive pop at his usual pet issues, and because you agree with those issues, it quite simply doesn't matter to you that there is no logical basis yet for connecting those issues to this tragedy.
Better yet, if it turns out not to have been a terrorist attack, you'll be undeterred: you agree with Trump's conclusions, therefore he was right.
This is my issue with Trump. He represents the troubling growth in the attitude that it's not important to understand anything, or to actually think about it. Thinking is for effeminate weaklings. Real Men (tm) know things, even when they've been proved wrong.
He and his supporters represent the encroaching triumph of the attitude that "I don't need facts, I have an opinion." Your "critique" of the article is a case in point: it didn't even reference the actual content of the headline, much less the article. The critique basically boiled down to: "I didn't like what it said, therefore it's wrong."
The dumbing down of discourse is not something anyone should be proud of.0 -
I didnt misinterpret the headline, I merely paraphrased it.
You are falling into the same trap you accuse others, you are using Trumps tweet and resulting "critique" to jump on your soapbox and launch baseless attacks on me for calling out said critique as completely off the point.
There is nothing in the article worth analysing in depth, its a series of blatant lies unrelated to Trumps tweet. I could fill pages discussing everything he brought up in the article, but its irrelevant to the main point, which is a tweet.
Here, let me critique Trumps tweet, which the article is allegedly doing, and which is the entire point of the article.
Looks like yet another terrorist attack.
True, it does.
Airplane departed from Paris.
Also true, recent terrorist attacks and questions over airport staff/security
When will we get tough, smart and vigilant?
Are we vigilant? Clearly not considering the number of terror attacks recently. Are we smart? have any of our anti terror/immigration policies made us safer? No. Are we tough, questionable, maybe we are, but misdirected toughness.
Great hate and sickness!
True, there is great hate and sickness in the world that people are bombing airliners full of innocent people
There, wasnt hard.0 -
Which Trump foreign policy do you support, the one where he stays out of conflicts, or the one where he threatens Mexico with military and economic sanctions if they don't pay for his stupid wall, or the one where he proposes bombing and torturing the families of terrorists?
Its more the fact he is bringing those ideas into the mainstream, closed borders, trade deals etc
I wouldnt support any of those policies as you lay them out aside from the staying out of foreign wars. But the idea is right, if not Trumps proposed method of execution.
Also, the US military has been engaged in bombing and torturing families of terrorists for decades, pick up any of the numerous books about the South American "dirty wars", or more recently the shia death squads in Iraq. Its not a "Trump proposal", its military reality, and has been for decades. This whole hand wringing over what Trump said is laughable.0 -
Wow. With that level of detailed analysis and insight, it's amazing he hasn't been Secretary of State for decades.JPNelsforearm wrote: »Here, let me critique Trumps tweet, which the article is allegedly doing, and which is the entire point of the article.
Looks like yet another terrorist attack.
True, it does.
Airplane departed from Paris.
Also true, recent terrorist attacks and questions over airport staff/security
When will we get tough, smart and vigilant?
Are we vigilant? Clearly not considering the number of terror attacks recently. Are we smart? have any of our anti terror/immigration policies made us safer? No. Are we tough, questionable, maybe we are, but misdirected toughness.
Great hate and sickness!
True, there is great hate and sickness in the world that people are bombing airliners full of innocent people
There, wasnt hard.0 -
List these lies, then.JPNelsforearm wrote: »There is nothing in the article worth analysing in depth, its a series of blatant lies unrelated to Trumps tweet.
See, this is what I was referring to when I kept asking what policies and stances of Trumps you supported (didn't get an answer if I recall?). You seem utterly mystified that someone would bring up what Trump has been hammering on about for the last year or so, because you are so caught up in cheerleading for Trump that you a) don't know what he stands for, b) don't appear to care whatever it is that he stands for, and c) don't really even seem all that interested in whatever it is that he stands for, and so anyone talking about what he stands for generally winds up lost on you.He extrapolates 400 words, 2,400 characters out of Trumps 22 word 139 character tweet, and proceeds to argue against himself. Its an article as nonsensical as its headline suggests.0 -
Its twitter, Trump is using the medium as its supposed to be used and you criticise him for not posting a dissertation.. c'mon, low energy.oscarBravo wrote: »Wow. With that level of detailed analysis and insight, it's amazing he hasn't been Secretary of State for decades.
Because thats a position has been manned by bastions of political insight such as Hillary Clinton and her "Arab spring", how did that work out again? Wow, much insight, such secretary of state, much Egyptian revolution, so Libya. Vote Hilldoge
Im not here proclaiming Trump the second Nostradamus, you have just strawmanned my posts as such, as I have consistently said, Trump is the least worst option.0 -
Its the standard apologism for islam, he links his own articles as sources, "islamophobia", "1 billion muslims" blah blah blahList these lies, then.
See, this is what I was referring to when I kept asking what policies and stances of Trumps you supported (didn't get an answer if I recall?). You seem utterly mystified that someone would bring up what Trump has been hammering on about for the last year or so, because you are so caught up in cheerleading for Trump that you a) don't know what he stands for, b) don't appear to care whatever it is that he stands for, and c) don't really even seem all that interested in whatever it is that he stands for, and so anyone talking about what he stands for generally winds up lost on you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/14/islamist-radicals-are-a-threat-but-do-you-need-to-attack-their-religion/?tid=a_inl
He cites "counterterrorism experts" who by anyones standards are complete failures at their own area of expertise with the growth and expansion of islamic terrorism over the past twenty years.
He does the Trumps comments help ISIS bit, that we cant talk about islamic terrorism or terror attacks.. etc
His article is just pure waffle, a series of talking points held together by the tenuous connection of Trumps tweets and statements, you could copy and paste them to apply after any terror attack at any point in the past 16 years and you would be hard pressed to tell if you were reading Salon or the Guardian, "Islam is good", wonderful.
He even cites a bunch of neo cons with well over a million arab deaths on their hands, the levant, Iraq and North Africa aflame due to the policies they support, yet Trump, is the bad guy, "who doesnt know what he is doing". I think I'll go with Trump on this one.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
What does Trump stand for? For me, he stands for nationalism, strong borders, anti globalisation, anti "insider, veteran, experienced, career politicians" who have nothing to show but decades of complete and abject failure, yet that is their sole selling point, this mythical "political experience".
He is the anti politician, the refutation of political correctness, false "niceness", the cosy arrogant liberal consensus that you see on pages like this, people engrossed in their own smugness about how enlightened and tolerant they are. Their outrage and hand wringing alone during Trumps campaign is worth it. I see it with my colleagues and friends, frothing at the mouth over words Trump has been reported to have said... its hilarious.0 -
"Now we should go in, we should stop this guy [Gaddafi], which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts. We don’t want to get involved and you’re gonna end up with something like you’ve never seen before."JPNelsforearm wrote: »Because thats a position has been manned by bastions of political insight such as Hillary Clinton and her "Arab spring", how did that work out again? Wow, much insight, such secretary of state, much Egyptian revolution, so Libya. Vote Hilldoge
- Donald Trump, 2011.
0 -
Advertisement
-
So what in those other articles are lies? You have not mentioned any?JPNelsforearm wrote: »Its the standard apologism for islam, he links his own articles as sources, "islamophobia", "1 billion muslims" blah blah blah
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/14/islamist-radicals-are-a-threat-but-do-you-need-to-attack-their-religion/?tid=a_inl
Which counterterrorism experts that he mentions are complete failures? Or are you trying to claim that every single counterterrorism expert in the entire world has zero credibility? I don't see any lies here, can you point them out?He cites "counterterrorism experts" who by anyones standards are complete failures at their own area of expertise with the growth and expansion of islamic terrorism over the past twenty years.
Where does he say we can't talk about terrorism or terror attacks? And if he did, how is that lying? You know what a lie is, right?He does the Trumps comments help ISIS bit, that we cant talk about islamic terrorism or terror attacks.. etc
Again, please point out how any of what you just said would constitute a lie?His article is just pure waffle, a series of talking points held together by the tenuous connection of Trumps tweets and statements, you could copy and paste them to apply after any terror attack at any point in the past 16 years and you would be hard pressed to tell if you were reading Salon or the Guardian, "Islam is good", wonderful.
And where does it say "Islam is good" since you quoted it? I mean, you're accusing them of lies (despite not specifying any lies), so surely you wouldn't want to hurt your own credibility by lying about what they said?
Again, no lies mentioned by you. Here are the names he cites two people:He even cites a bunch of neo cons with well over a million arab deaths on their hands, the levant, Iraq and North Africa aflame due to the policies they support, yet Trump, is the bad guy, "who doesnt know what he is doing". I think I'll go with Trump on this one.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
French PM François Hollande
Egyptian aviation minister Sherif Fathy
So there is no 'bunch' there unless you consider two people a 'bunch'. Now please point out to all of us how Hollande, and more intriguingly, Egypt's aviation minister, are neocons?
I really do hope you're not lying while accusing others of doing so. Really, I do.
For someone claiming to be for 'strong borders' he has employed a illegals in the past, on multiple occasions if I am correct. So that doesn't wash, it would be like voting for Denis O'Brien because he claimed to want more freedom of the press, and transparency in business to avoid corruption.What does Trump stand for? For me, he stands for nationalism, strong borders, anti globalisation, anti "insider, veteran, experienced, career politicians" who have nothing to show but decades of complete and abject failure, yet that is their sole selling point, this mythical "political experience".
Trump supports globalisation: "The important thing to consider is that more and more there is an interdependence of world economies. No one can afford to be isolationist any more. Keep your focus global. Globalization has torn down the barriers that have formerly separated the national from the international markets."
As for decades of failure, Trump has lost more money that he has ever made, and was unable to prove that an author was making stuff up when they showed his worth to be around 10-20% of what he claims (meaning he has lot a LOT more than he has earned).
You have yet to actually mention particular policies of his that you are behind, just vague generalities that he is going to have to betray on you to stand a chance in the election itself. He inherited his position due to his family's wealth, has failed comfortably more than he has succeeded, and is soon to go to trial for defrauding many trusting people out of millions of dollars. He's a bigger at least as big a failure, is a proven bigger liar, and is every bit as corrupt as just about anyone in DC.
So there we are - anger and being able to shout angry things to let people know you're angry, and trolling to get that anger out some more. It's not a high benchmark.He is the anti politician, the refutation of political correctness, false "niceness", the cosy arrogant liberal consensus that you see on pages like this, people engrossed in their own smugness about how enlightened and tolerant they are. Their outrage and hand wringing alone during Trumps campaign is worth it. I see it with my colleagues and friends, frothing at the mouth over words Trump has been reported to have said... its hilarious.0 -
Go into the links he cites in the original article.
I am talking about the general tone of the article and the pieces he cites within, his narrative and overall presentation is false, a lie. He has articles within articles on this stuff, am I to go paragraph by paragraph refuting every single point he makes? Can you not read the article itself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/14/islamist-radicals-are-a-threat-but-do-you-need-to-attack-their-religion/?tid=a_inl
The usual Islamophobia nonsense, blah blah. Its a narrative, a false vision of the world, a lie for the first few paragraphs, crying about refugees. the entire article is nonsense, its not credible. He is just repeating a mantra, the Islamophobia/religion of peace manifesto one could call it.
He writes"The fallacy of a clash of civilizations", yes, thousand plus years of conflict and conquest of Islam against the west, of course the "clash of civilisations" is a fantasy, lets ask the Greeks in East Thrace how much of a fantasy it is..... A look at the history of Islam and the west is enough to verify that, yes, a clash is occuring, and has been occuring.
My point was its the same stuff that has been parroted since 9/11, even implemented by various European governments, multikulti, tolerance, none of it works.
It is a lie, his narrative is false.
He cites neo cons with the blood of a millions arabs on their hands as a refutation from a place of authority as regards Trump, he is presenting a false narrative, thus he is lying. They are experts in death, nothing more.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
The counter terrorism experts he cites have led failed anti terror policies, therefore their opinions are irrelevant, him citing them as a refutation of Trump is a lie, they have no authority, no knowledge, only failure.
If Trump betrays everything he has said, so what? that means he is just another lying politician, nothing lost, nothing gained, its irrelevant. Its betting with someone elses money. He has forced the narrative.
Anger, no, I'm enjoying the show, I find it hilarious.0 -
Actually, I'm criticising him for wading feet-first into a situation he knows next to nothing about with nothing more than empty platitudes and mindless truisms.JPNelsforearm wrote: »Its twitter, Trump is using the medium as its supposed to be used and you criticise him for not posting a dissertation.. c'mon, low energy.
More to the point, I'm arguing against your reflexive (and, so far, not exactly well-reasoned) dismissal of the article that criticised the tweet.
You're awfully defensive on behalf of someone you consider least worst. Would it kill you to agree that mouthing off about a situation we don't know enough about to offer a meaningful commentary on was ill-advised at best, and downright stupid at worst?Im not here proclaiming Trump the second Nostradamus, you have just strawmanned my posts as such, as I have consistently said, Trump is the least worst option.
Or is it the case, as I've already argued, that because you agree with his conclusions, you don't care how he arrived at them?0 -
"Now we should go in, we should stop this guy [Gaddafi], which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts. We don’t want to get involved and you’re gonna end up with something like you’ve never seen before."
- Donald Trump, 2011.
At least he recognises it was wrong, has Hillary done so? Plenty of people still maintain that Gaddafi was in fact massacring people and cheerleaded the intervention.
Again, you miss the point, Im not claiming Trump is some infallible god-emperor, I've always said he is simply less **** than everyone else. That is the barometer.
I actually disliked Trump up as far as 2011/12 when he was banging on about the birther nonsense. My sole impressions of him was from Patrick Batemans infatuation with him, a cameo in Home Alone 2 and the terrible reality TV show that I couldnt stand to watch, I found him cringeworthy.0 -
Trump displays as much knowledge as many of the blatantly politically biased "experts" cited in opposition to him in that article. Take that journalist, it is an "islamophobia" by numbers cut and paste job of an article, if you've read one, you've read a thousand, writing another one whilst ostensibly "criticising" Trumps tweet, its trite at this point.oscarBravo wrote: »Actually, I'm criticising him for wading feet-first into a situation he knows next to nothing about with nothing more than empty platitudes and mindless truisms.
Trumps tweet was 129 characters, this guy wrote over two thousand in response, Trumps twitter is not that deep, its fairly simple to analyse what the guy said. Who does Trump aim this tweets at, what demographic? Its not at someone studying for a doctorate in international relations..More to the point, I'm arguing against your reflexive (and, so far, not exactly well-reasoned) dismissal of the article that criticised the tweet. You're awfully defensive on behalf of someone you consider least worst. Would it kill you to agree that mouthing off about a situation we don't know enough about to offer a meaningful commentary on was ill-advised at best, and downright stupid at worst?
Everyone does it, ask yourself, how many "islamophobia/terrorism has no religion" etc etc articles pop up after a terrorist attack? The goal is establish a narrative, from whatever side of the debate you are on. Should Trump be above that? He has based his entire campaign on setting the narrative and tone and its worked for him.Or is it the case, as I've already argued, that because you agree with his conclusions, you don't care how he arrived at them?
Partly, yes, Trump is exploiting a gap in the market, if he is just a big liar everything is back at square one and its Hillary Clinton lite who has been elected, no loss, no victory for anyone, status quo.0 -
OK, let's go back to first principles.JPNelsforearm wrote: »Trump displays as much knowledge as many of the blatantly politically biased "experts" cited in opposition to him in that article.
Would you agree that we don't yet know what caused MS804 to crash?0 -
He hasn't though - he now claims he never said anything about Libya, which is no better whatsoever than Hillary not saying it was a mistake.JPNelsforearm wrote: »At least he recognises it was wrong, has Hillary done so? Plenty of people still maintain that Gaddafi was in fact massacring people and cheerleaded the intervention.
"He said I was in favor in Libya," Trump said, sounding perplexed. "I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now."
- Donald Trump, 2016
Except he is not. His wall/deport all illegals immediately plan alone would either a) lead to war, or b) bankrupt the US in record speed. He is a proven liar, way way moreso than anybody in the race (yes, including Cruz -though I would agree he may have been even worse than Trump on the whole- and Clinton). He has failed more than he has succeeded in business (relying on the US taxpayer to pick up the bill), and that has typically come from over-reaching too early, which that wall plan is a great example of. He is also openly advocating war crimes, and flip flopping all over the place. He has called for violence during his rallies, and actively encouraged his supporters to partake in it. There is almost nothing to suggest he would make a good president, and there is considerably more likely to be one of the worst and most dangerous the world has seen - there is a reason why the Economist has concluded he is as big a threat to the global economy as Islamic extremist terrorists.Again, you miss the point, Im not claiming Trump is some infallible god-emperor, I've always said he is simply less **** than everyone else. That is the barometer.0 -
You said "There is nothing in the article worth analysing in depth, its a series of blatant lies unrelated to Trumps tweet."JPNelsforearm wrote: »Go into the links he cites in the original article.
You specifically pointed to that article, and have yet to point out a single lie from that article.
So you were talking about an entirely different article? That does explain how the original article was "a series of blatant lies unrelated to Trumps tweet" as you claimed, now does it?I am talking about the general tone of the article and the pieces he cites within, his narrative and overall presentation is false, a lie. He has articles within articles on this stuff, am I to go paragraph by paragraph refuting every single point he makes? Can you not read the article itself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/14/islamist-radicals-are-a-threat-but-do-you-need-to-attack-their-religion/?tid=a_inl
You're not specifying anything the author said in the second article you have brought up due to not being able to find the lies you claimed were in the first. You could copy and paste that exact paragraph of yours to literally thousands and thousands of different articles from the last few weeks alone, because it does nothing to address the article itself. The first several paragraphs of that are entirely about Trump's and others' statements, you seem to be reading different words than are on the screen.The usual Islamophobia nonsense, blah blah. Its a narrative, a false vision of the world, a lie for the first few paragraphs, crying about refugees. the entire article is nonsense, its not credible. He is just repeating a mantra, the Islamophobia/religion of peace manifesto one could call it.
So clearly then, you consider the British a great threat to the world at large also. To each their own in that case.He writes"The fallacy of a clash of civilizations", yes, thousand plus years of conflict and conquest of Islam against the west, of course the "clash of civilisations" is a fantasy, lets ask the Greeks in East Thrace how much of a fantasy it is..... A look at the history of Islam and the west is enough to verify that, yes, a clash is occuring, and has been occuring.
If Islam = automatic all out warfare with Christians, then why isn't that the case in Toronto?
That didn't start getting "parroted" after 9/11, anti Muslim sentiment just skyrocketed as the west found a post-communism bogeyman following a long decade of false hope across the likes of Eastern Europe and Africa. Only in Africa they are not Christian terrorists - they are merely 'warlords', because Christian terrorists are actually a proper example of the media not 'telling it like it is'.My point was its the same stuff that has been parroted since 9/11, even implemented by various European governments, multikulti, tolerance, none of it works.
Where was this link, I must have missed it. I checked through both the article you claimed was lying, and the second article you are now instead trying to cite as some way of showing the first article was lying, and I cannot see it.He cites neo cons with the blood of a millions arabs on their hands as a refutation from a place of authority as regards Trump, he is presenting a false narrative, thus he is lying. They are experts in death, nothing more.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
Are you now using a third article to show that the second article is lying to prove that the third article is lying which you originally accused it of doing itself? If so, this is a brilliant example of the absurd mental loopholes OscarBravo (I believe it was) mentioned a page or two back.
Perfect, now you can go and name me the counter terror experts who have been completely right and 100% successful in all roles and operations they have had throughout their entire careers.The counter terrorism experts he cites have led failed anti terror policies, therefore their opinions are irrelevant, him citing them as a refutation of Trump is a lie, they have no authority, no knowledge, only failure.
Or... we can extend that logic. Trump has failed many times in business with money, so Trump is bad for the economy. Case closed, end of story, no discussion to be had here.
So you're not even interested in his positions or credibility. Great...If Trump betrays everything he has said, so what?
He is already a proven liar, and is already shown to be the most lying politician in this cycle by a large margin.that means he is just another lying politician, nothing lost, nothing gained, its irrelevant.
In a thread of lunacy, that is the most irresponsible statement of the lot. Who's money is this? Is the world as it is right now, with threats of terrorism, growing extremism on all sides, mass movements of people from one part of the world to another, economic instability, emerging new powers and faltering new powers, daily mass shootings (just on a domestic US level), and so on "someone elses money"?Its betting with someone elses money.
In what context do you even mean this, "gambling with someone elses money"? You're aware that what happens in the US has major impact across the rest of the world because of their current position? You're aware of how much Ireland's economy depends on the US's economy?
And that pretty much wraps it up - you're not interested in fixing things. You're not interested in making things better. You're not interested in improving relations, or co existing. You're not interested in the economics of the situation. You're not interested in any of that.He has forced the narrative.
Anger, no, I'm enjoying the show, I find it hilarious.
You're interested in having a reality show celebrity in the White House, and you're interested in the reality-TV like trolling he involves himself in. Going by your posting history, that he doesn't like Muslims is an added bonus. And you will do absolutely anything to justify that position, regardless of how little sense it actually makes or how transparent it is for everyone to see.0 -
JPNelsforearm wrote: »Its more the fact he is bringing those ideas into the mainstream, closed borders, trade
Also, the US military has been engaged in bombing and torturing families of terrorists for decades, pick up any of the numerous books about the South American "dirty wars", or more recently the shia death squads in Iraq. Its not a "Trump proposal", its military reality, and has been for decades. This whole hand wringing over what Trump said is laughable.
The US involvement in torture and propping up dictatorships and arming death squads are the very worst skeletons in the American closet.
Running a political campaign extolling the virtues of torturing innocent people is an indication of a depraved world view. If any head of state said that they should torture the children of U. S. Politicians it would be an act of war0 -
Advertisement
-
Trump is personality politics taken to an extreme, it isn't about policy or any of that stuff, pointing out a complete U turn on Libya, abortion, same sex marriage etc. does not matter. It's Donald Trump and that's all that matters.
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement