Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al_Moritz said:
Former KKK Leader David Duke Says ‘Of Course’ Trump Voters Are His Voters
Click to expand...
Speaking of the KKK, many people do not know how it started or which party it was and is connected with or how HRC has been mentored by it.

youtu.be/SnLR1tuqI5k

Start at about 7:31 for this specific topic, but the entire discussion is enlightening…

…at least for those who have no automatic reaction against knowing the truth of things when it is contrary to their own cherished narrative.

So Trump gets lambasted for an outlying KKK member supporting him, but Clinton not even a notice for considering Margaret Sanger, Robert Bird and Saul Alinsky personal heroes and mentors. Funny that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You mean a mountain of speculation and more interpretations by Clinton-haters. I watched the first four minutes, and then skipped around watching selections from various points, in case the first four minutes were not typical. Except for the dark music and scary visual effects, the content of the first four minutes was of a charitable foundation with decent goals doing a decent job. Anything that has to rely on the emotional pull of purpose-driven background music is not a serious source of evidence for what should be a rational argument.
Click to expand...
I would argue that anyone who uses the “emotional pull of purpose-driven background music” as an easy excuse not to watch and gather relevant evidence isn’t really interested in anything like hearing a rational argument.

Shouldn’t rational arguments be assessed on the grounds of their reasonableness rather than on the emotional impression you may or may not have based upon the music selection played prior to when any rational arguments are presented in the first place?

Should have had a trigger-warning on the music for you political princess types, I suppose

One thing about reason, it sees through the emotional facade and gets to the heart of the issue. It doesn’t get emotionally battered by any so-called barrage of “purpose-driven background music.” It is strong enough to persist through it after identifying it for what it is. Unfortunately, you couldn’t quite muster the rational strength to endure. Your “emotional pull” away from the music kept you from actually becoming rational at that moment. It was your “purpose-driven” emotions that delivered you from where you emotionally didn’t want to be – no rationality required for that, I guess. 🤓
 
LeafByNiggle said:
…the content of the first four minutes was of a charitable foundation with decent goals doing a decent job.
Click to expand...
Yup, the first four minutes were intended by design to show what most people “know” or, at least, “think” about the Clinton Foundation. The remaining hour is to demonstrate that the impressions most people have of a “charitable foundation with decent goals doing a decent job” have been wildly and exceedingly mistaken. It might even be added that the public perception has been outrageously manipulated by masters at inflicting “emotional pulls.”

And so it continues.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I would argue that anyone who uses the “emotional pull of purpose-driven background music” as an easy excuse not to watch and gather relevant evidence isn’t really interested in anything like hearing a rational argument.

Shouldn’t rational arguments be assessed on the grounds of their reasonableness rather than on the emotional impression you may or may not have based upon the music selection played prior to when any rational arguments are presented in the first place?

Should have had a trigger-warning on the music for you political princess types, I suppose

One thing about reason, it sees through the emotional facade and gets to the heart of the issue. It doesn’t get emotionally battered by any so-called barrage of “purpose-driven background music.” It is strong enough to persist through it after identifying it for what it is. Unfortunately, you couldn’t quite muster the rational strength to endure. Your “emotional pull” away from the music kept you from actually becoming rational at that moment. It was your “purpose-driven” emotions that delivered you from where you emotionally didn’t want to be – no rationality required for that, I guess. 🤓
Click to expand...
I don’t think they use background music when they present arguments at the Supreme Court. I wonder why not?

Seriously, if you have evidence of your claim, don’t make me sit through a one-hour Clinton-hating biased movie to find it.
 
Thorolfr said:
One poll doesn’t mean much. If you look at Five Thirty Eight’s Polls-only forecast which relies on a number of polls, Clinton has an 81.5% chance of winning to Trump’s 18.4%. The Now-cast is even more skewed in Clinton’s favor giving her a 91.7% chance of winning to Trump’s 8.3% if the election were held today.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
Click to expand...
How many of those polls included in the forecast were of likely voters compared to those done on registered voters? And how many of those polls included Gary Johnson and Jill Stein? Because those two being part of the poll or not could impact the numbers for Clinton and Trump. As the article below makes clear, the same Reuters poll done on registered voters shows Clinton with a larger lead when compared to the same poll but done on likely voters. Excerpt:

"Reuters, on the other hand, surveyed an almost identical number of likely voters, which many of the other pollsters won’t start doing until Labor Day. When they expanded their own survey out to just registered voters (which is still better than all adults, but not as good as likely voters) they too came up with a larger lead for Clinton in the range of five points.

It’s also impossible to write Reuters off as an outlier because they showed Clinton with a large lead right after the Democrats’ convention just like everyone else. (Eight points among likely voters rather than the double digit leads she had in some other surveys.) Look… the entire point here is not to say that Trump didn’t take a beating after the conventions. He’s generated a mountain of bad headlines, some of which is the usual media pile-on that every Republican gets but some which he brought on himself. His numbers are weaker than they were two weeks ago and there’s no denying it. But I’ll want to see a good number of additional surveys of likely voters before I begin carving his epitaph."

hotair.com/archives/2016/08/06/despite-all-the-headlines-reutersipsos-poll-has-the-race-nearly-tied/
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You mean a mountain of speculation and more interpretations by Clinton-haters. I watched the first four minutes, and then skipped around watching selections from various points, in case the first four minutes were not typical. Except for the dark music and scary visual effects, the content of the first four minutes was of a charitable foundation with decent goals doing a decent job. Anything that has to rely on the emotional pull of purpose-driven background music is not a serious source of evidence for what should be a rational argument.
Click to expand...
You might want to, then, view the second video I referenced in post 1194. DeSouza and Molyneux even discuss the idea of “triggering” (at 17:51 of the video) wherein individuals are made incapable of considering a topic from a rational perspective by their heightened emotional state. Sounds precisely what was happening to you when you watched the first video, no?

This was the link youtu.be/SnLR1tuqI5k.

There is no ominous music nor any scary special effects, just two guys rationally discussing the topic giving facts and reasoned arguments.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I don’t think they use background music when they present arguments at the Supreme Court. I wonder why not?

Seriously, if you have evidence of your claim, don’t make me sit through a one-hour Clinton-hating biased movie to find it.
Click to expand...
I suppose you will judge the amount of “Clinton-hating” based upon the number of statements which do not support them or point out their malfeasances. In other words, there is no convincing you of any view opposed to yours because all evidence which contradicts your viewpoint is mere “Clinton-hating” by definition.

I suppose there is no background music in the Supreme Court because the justices are presumed beyond all such emotional appeals and judge strictly by the rational case being made.

The more cynical of us might point out that an increasing number of justices base their judgements upon what convinces “most” or the “majority” of people. They “go with the flow” rather than think rationally and deeply about the issues. In other words, their findings are more and more downstream from the culture within which they abide. In case you haven’t noticed, the majority of people in modern western cultures are, in fact, swayed by the entertainment value or emotional pull of the media and society. As, apparently, are you in a negative sense, since you cannot view a documentary without prejudging it based purely upon your preliminary emotional response.

Again, the second video strictly presents evidence and argumentation, but I suspect you will some excuse for dismissing it, as well.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I suppose you will judge the amount of “Clinton-hating” based upon the number of statements which do not support them or point out their malfeasances. In other words, there is no convincing you of any view opposed to yours because all evidence which contradicts your viewpoint is mere “Clinton-hating” by definition.

I suppose there is no background music in the Supreme Court because the justices are presumed beyond all such emotional appeals and judge strictly by the rational case being made.

The more cynical of us might point out that an increasing number of justices base their judgements upon what convinces “most” or the “majority” of people. They “go with the flow” rather than think rationally and deeply about the issues. In other words, their findings are more and more downstream from the culture within which they abide. In case you haven’t noticed, the majority of people in modern western cultures are, in fact, swayed by the entertainment value or emotional pull of the media and society. As, apparently, are you in a negative sense, since you cannot view a documentary without prejudging it based purely upon your preliminary emotional response.

Again, the second video strictly presents evidence and argumentation, but I suspect you will some excuse for dismissing it, as well.
Click to expand...
Can’t you come up with an objective souce? Preferably not one on youtube! I can read faster than I can listen to a story-teller.
 
Al_Moritz said:
😃 Seriously, Peter?
Click to expand...
Yes, actually.

No one ever makes a case against the facts he presents. His detractors always resort to ad hominem attacks. As you both have done.

You wouldn’t and couldn’t touch his arguments, correct?

Again, opposed to the going narrative, therefore dismissed offhand.
 
In a shocking new poll, Trump is down by only 3 points
After a week of being behind Hillary Clinton by ten points or more in various polls, Donald Trump has suddenly pulled to nearly even in a national poll by Reuters/Ipsos released Saturday.
Click to expand...
Clinton leads with 42 percent of the vote compared to 39 percent for Trump, a significant gain for the GOP nominee, who had been behind by eight points in a Reuters poll Monday.
Click to expand...
“The reasons behind the shift were unclear,” Reuters said.
Click to expand...
washingtonexaminer.com/in-a-shocking-new-poll-trump-is-down-by-only-3-points/article/2598774

Trump just gained 8 points in the latest Reuters poll (up from previous Reuters poll). After one of his worst weeks yet…
 
Peter_Plato said:
Your endorsement of the genetic fallacy is duly noted.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that exactly the kind if reasoning that causes you to disbelieve what Obama and Hillary and Kerry and Moore say, not because of the content of their message, but because of who they are? I suppose you take seriously every claim in An Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11. These are books too.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Isn’t that exactly the kind if reasoning that causes you to disbelieve what Obama and Hillary and Kerry and Moore say, not because of the content of their message, but because of who they are? I suppose you take seriously every claim in An Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11. These are books too.
Click to expand...
Touché.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
In a shocking new poll, Trump is down by only 3 points

washingtonexaminer.com/in-a-shocking-new-poll-trump-is-down-by-only-3-points/article/2598774

Trump just gained 8 points in the latest Reuters poll (up from previous Reuters poll). After one of his worst weeks yet…
Click to expand...
Of course in a different Reuters poll over the almost exact same time fram Clinton opened up a bigger lead to 8pts ahead over Trump. Polling is varying wildly right now even among Reuters own polls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top