meltzerboy
New member
That will be the October surprise!
- Status
meltzerboy
New member
This only shows that the polls are virtually useless at this stage of the race.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Will the media apologize to trump?
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/will-media-apologize-trump-mother-crying-baby-rally-speaks/
"One other salient fact is missing from all the pieces on babygate. Mom and baby, very much not kicked out, came back to their seat a bit later.
The baby was sucking a pacifier, silent."
This was the incident where Trump was branded as a cold-hearted baby hater who flip flops and possibly has alzheimers.
Apology from the media? I’ll wait till after the trump inauguration.
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/will-media-apologize-trump-mother-crying-baby-rally-speaks/
"One other salient fact is missing from all the pieces on babygate. Mom and baby, very much not kicked out, came back to their seat a bit later.
The baby was sucking a pacifier, silent."
This was the incident where Trump was branded as a cold-hearted baby hater who flip flops and possibly has alzheimers.
Apology from the media? I’ll wait till after the trump inauguration.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Trump campaign implodes!
—Um, he’s still having rallies today.
Trump is so far behind hillary the election is practically over!
—Um, he’s tied with her in today’s polls.
Trump is so divisive that his own party fancies him dropping out! He refuses to endorse prominent republicans! How dare he!
—Um, he endorsed paul ryan today and he’s still the nonimee.
Trump doesn’t listen to advice. He never listens to anybody.
—Um, he just HIRED FIRM BEHIND BREXIT VICTORY…
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/donald-trump-ups-game-hires-firm-behind-brexit-win/
—Um, he’s still having rallies today.
Trump is so far behind hillary the election is practically over!
—Um, he’s tied with her in today’s polls.
Trump is so divisive that his own party fancies him dropping out! He refuses to endorse prominent republicans! How dare he!
—Um, he endorsed paul ryan today and he’s still the nonimee.
Trump doesn’t listen to advice. He never listens to anybody.
—Um, he just HIRED FIRM BEHIND BREXIT VICTORY…
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/donald-trump-ups-game-hires-firm-behind-brexit-win/
G
Good_Tidings
Guest
What’s your point?
R
randomuser
Guest
Um…that the GOP throwing the PRO-LIFE Republican (any of them) under the bus probably wasn’t the brightest idea?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
GOP congressman says he’ll vote for Libertarian ticket over Trump
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va. said Saturday that he would support Libertarian Gary Johnson for president over GOP nominee Donald Trump.
“I’ve always said I will not vote for Donald Trump and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton,” Rigell told The New York Times.
**Rigell is the third Republican House member this week **to say he would not vote for the real estate mogul, who has caused an uproar on the campaign trail with a series of controversial comments.
On Tuesday, Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., wrote in an op-ed that he would vote for Clinton instead of Trump, whom Hanna called “offensive and narcissistic,” as well as “a world-class panderer.”
Both Hanna and Rigell are retiring from Congress following this election.
The day after Hanna’s op-ed was published, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., told CNN that he would not back Trump amid an ongoing war of words between the GOP nominee and the Muslim family of a fallen American soldier.
“Donald Trump for me is beginning to cross a lot of red lines in the unforgivable on politics,” said Kinzinger. “He has crossed so many red lines that a Commander-in-Chief, or a candidate for Commander-in-Chief should never cross.”
Kinzinger added that he would not vote for Clinton and was uncertain about whether to write in a candidate.
Rigell told the Times that he expected more GOP members of Congress and local officials to distance themselves from Trump as Election Day nears. He claimed that many Republican candidates have asked him for advice.
“When their own conscience is seared by some statement that Trump has made,” Rigell said. “I have encouraged them to be direct and also, in a timely manner, repudiate what he said.”
Rigell also vowed that he would leave the party and become an independent if Trump’s campaign platform took hold in the party.
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va. said Saturday that he would support Libertarian Gary Johnson for president over GOP nominee Donald Trump.
“I’ve always said I will not vote for Donald Trump and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton,” Rigell told The New York Times.
**Rigell is the third Republican House member this week **to say he would not vote for the real estate mogul, who has caused an uproar on the campaign trail with a series of controversial comments.
On Tuesday, Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., wrote in an op-ed that he would vote for Clinton instead of Trump, whom Hanna called “offensive and narcissistic,” as well as “a world-class panderer.”
Both Hanna and Rigell are retiring from Congress following this election.
The day after Hanna’s op-ed was published, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., told CNN that he would not back Trump amid an ongoing war of words between the GOP nominee and the Muslim family of a fallen American soldier.
“Donald Trump for me is beginning to cross a lot of red lines in the unforgivable on politics,” said Kinzinger. “He has crossed so many red lines that a Commander-in-Chief, or a candidate for Commander-in-Chief should never cross.”
Kinzinger added that he would not vote for Clinton and was uncertain about whether to write in a candidate.
Rigell told the Times that he expected more GOP members of Congress and local officials to distance themselves from Trump as Election Day nears. He claimed that many Republican candidates have asked him for advice.
“When their own conscience is seared by some statement that Trump has made,” Rigell said. “I have encouraged them to be direct and also, in a timely manner, repudiate what he said.”
Rigell also vowed that he would leave the party and become an independent if Trump’s campaign platform took hold in the party.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Huh?
Actually, the way it works is that you listen to the arguments presented by the individual, assess each one on its own merits, and then conclude the individual is either a persuasive dialectician because their arguments are consistently sound and compelling, or you conclude they are generally a bloviating rhetorician. You don’t, however, dismiss or accept every argument made by the individual merely because the individual makes it. You still have to assess any new argument on its own merits NOT dismiss or accept the argument merely because a particular individual makes it. Both would be instances of the genetic fallacy – appeal to authority or an ad hominem.
Now, it isn’t sufficient to conclude an argument is bad merely because a bloviating rhetorician has made it – again, that would be an instance of the genetic fallacy. Which is, with all due respect, what you have done by claiming the arguments in Hillary’s America must be bad because you have decided Dinesh DeSouza is biased without giving any of his facts or arguments a fair hearing.
With regard to Gore (you did mean Gore, right?) and Moore, I initially thought they made some compelling points because I was taken in by their persuasive techniques, but after studying what they had to say more closely, I am convinced many of their most significant claims are at least dubious and probably incorrect.
I wouldn’t try to argue that Gore or Moore are wrong because they are biased on the issue in question. I think the only fair way of drawing any conclusion even with regard to bias is to show the bias exists because the arguments are clearly or obviously wrong. Otherwise, it isn’t bias that leads those individuals to draw particular conclusions, it is because they have rationally arrived at those conclusions. That isn’t bias, it would be a correct judgement and it would be your own bias that prevents you from seeing that.
Now, you have to show DeSouza is simply wrong in his claims about Hillary. You can’t just claim he is wrong because he is biased. You have to show bias before you can claim bias.
Think about it. We could turn the tables on you and claim anything you have to say about Trump, even any sound points you might bring up, ought to be dismissed purely on the grounds that you have shown bias or disfavor of him. We’d never get to discuss key points because we would simply be pitting bias against bias. How will that get us anywhere near the goal of making sense of issues or drawing proper conclusions?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Reasoning is always a challenge. Take for example these scientists who went looking for salmonella on tomato plants in the US and were led – using the, at that time, most current and precise methods – to conclude the duckbilled platypus had a range covering a great portion of the earth.
m.imgur.com/Up4mGEE?r
Off topic? Perhaps.
But it does show why so many are tempted to try to draw easy conclusions from biases.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Trump is right: He didn’t kick a baby out of a campaign rally
washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/06/trumps-right-he-didnt-kick-a-baby-out-of-a-campaign-rally/
washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/06/trumps-right-he-didnt-kick-a-baby-out-of-a-campaign-rally/
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
The point is, go back and watch the rhetoric about trump campaign imploding from a couple days ago. And see how easily he has turned things around. It’s easy to underestimate the trump campaign.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Oh this bit of news changes everything! I’ll vote for him now. (Kidding)
This “babygate” issue was a non issue.
The recent endorsement of the former CIA director and his OP ED in the New York Times is an interesting read.
For film buffs, sometimes trump reminds me slightly and uneasily of John Iselin. Just sometimes though.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I did look at your movie, based on the book in question, with an open mind. I determined that it was relying on facts not easily confirmed from other sources. Furthermore, it was relying on facts that, if true, would be so significant, that other sources would have to be talking about them. So the movie, and presumably the book on which it was based, would have me believe that they alone have the truth, and mainstream news is either grossly incompetent or controlled by the Clintons. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. There is such a thing as spending too much time investigating every outlandish claim. Another valid principle is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So I think I am justified in looking further into the character of the author to see if there is any reason I should give his claims the same credibility as I would give to Walter Cronkite. The answer was no.
G
Good_Tidings
Guest
You’re not the Lone Ranger.
nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html?_r=0
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You left out “has an ideological agenda” best served by establishment policies into which the Clintons fit hand in glove, and which explains why any criticism of HRC in the press is very slight, while ferocious attacks are waged on anyone challenging that agenda.
One only has to look at how the mainstream media falls over itself defending Planned Parenthood while slamming any attempt at discrediting the business of baby killing and selling parts. Call it conspiracy theory in order to dismiss the point if you wish, but if it looks like a conspiracy and smells like a conspiracy, it very well could be a conspiracy. Ever heard the name David Daleiden? Tell me, keeping a straight face, that there hasn’t been a conspiracy to silence him by supporters of PP alive and plying their sadism in justice departments in Texas, California and federally.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Which movie did you look at? The movie “Hillary’s America” based on Dinesh’s book is ONLY in theatres at the moment.
The YouTube video Clinton Cash isn’t based on “the book in question.”
It seems you haven’t sufficiently paid attention to the details to have realized that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Both are vile endorsements.
But I think we Trump we can say that he is aware of the monstrous ideology that the KKK represents.
With Hillary, I’m quite certain that she’s not aware of Sanger’s eugenic, racist views.
When we think of the KKK we think: racism. And Trump should disavow himself from that.
He has not.
When we think of Margaret Sanger, we think: contraception.
And that’s what Hillary is endorsing.
And while we know that contraception is immoral, no one can blame Hillary for trying to make contraception available, in the context of this discussion, and in comparison to Trump’s KKK endorsement.
Not the same thing at all.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Some of my friends (who are all Trump supporters) are already saying “We’re going to remember all those Republicans, who wouldn’t support Trump when they’re up for re-election”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yipes. Scary. Very scary.
- Status