Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Is it possible to be a Hillary apologist when you say you’re not going to vote for her?

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary–by Mark Shea

I dunno…it seems pretty clear that you’re NOT a Hillary apologist, but maybe that’s just me?

And even if he were a “Hillary apologist”, that doesn’t refute his statement. 🤷
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, voting was done in secret. Who knows how Shea will vote? It is easy to SAY you won’t vote for someone, but how will that be verified except by taking the word of the person who says it?

So it is quite possible for someone to be a Hillary apologist, say they are not voting for her in public and still vote for her.

The word “possible” certainly doesn’t imply logical impossibility when you asked “Is it possible…?" does it?

You must realize that, no?
 
Abynissa said:
I believe Trump will win. Polls are meaningless at this early stage as there are still three months left. What is worrying is the mentality of his supporters when Trump stated:’ I could ‘shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters’ Wow! So by making that statement, Trump indicates that he can commit immoral and illegal acts and his supporters will still vote for him. This is how dictators come to power.
Click to expand...
There are still less than 3 mos until election day and less time than that before early voting. But maybe not completely meaningless. As no candidate in Donald Trump’s position at this stage of the campaign has gone on to win the popular vote in November in the modern polling era. Some pollsters caution that even by the first debate in late September, the race will be locked in against Trump, who would be on an inexorable path to defeat regardless of how he performs.

Granted it’s all about 270 electoral votes in the end. But that too is not looking good for Trump at this point in time. Among those voters who’ve committed, Clinton has a clear lead: She leads in all 11 swing states that comprise POLITICO’s Battleground States project — including 5 states where Clinton’s lead is 7 percentage points are greater. Trump would have to sweep the remaining six states — where Clinton leads, but by smaller margins — just to force an Electoral College tie.

And many of the voters Trump would need to win over in order to come back aren’t open to voting for him.

politico.com/story/2016/08/pollsters-trump-approaching-zero-hour-227000

Agree with you about Trump and how dictators come to power.
 
Thorolfr said:
That looks convincing. :rolleyes:

Nate Silver wrote an article about Zogby a while back: “The Worst Pollster in the World Strikes Again”

[The Worst Pollster in the World Strikes Again](The Worst Pollster in the World Strikes Again)
Click to expand...
There isn’t a direct link to that article, but the article in question was written around seven years ago. What about the pollster today?

On Five Thirty Eight they have called “78%” correct and are rated “C-” : projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

I don’t know what their percentage of races correctly called was in 2009 but calling nearly 80% correctly seems pretty good.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Which information sources do you think are more credible than mainstream media? Please omit any sources that overtly claim to favor a political point of view. I want only sources that at least have the semblance of objectivity.
Click to expand...
Pretty much any well-informed commentators who are not part of the MSM.

In fact, taking the time to hear or read what a variety of them have to say and doing a little fact-checking on the side produces a far better perspective of objectivity than the main stream media which is much like hearing the same talking points parroted ad nauseam.

Sorry, Leaf, I won’t provide sources. I’ve been through this before with you.

I won’t permit the genetic fallacy the opportunity to rear its ugly head again. If you want to discuss particular arguments and facts, that is one thing. Dismissing the arguments and facts merely because of where they originate is not worth my time.
 
_Abyssinia said:
There isn’t a direct link to that article, but the article in question was written around seven years ago. What about the pollster today?

On Five Thirty Eight they have called “78%” correct and are rated “C-” : projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

I don’t know what their percentage of races correctly called was in 2009 but calling nearly 80% correctly seems pretty good.
Click to expand...
The link is here:

fivethirtyeight.com/features/worst-pollster-in-world-strikes-again/

His main complaint against Zogby’s polls:
Zogby, however, also conducts Internet-based polls. These polls are conducted among users who volunteer to participate in them, first by signing up at the Zogby website (you can do so yourself here) and then by responding to an e-mail solicitation. These Internet polls, to the extent they rely on voluntary participation, violate the most basic precept of survey research, which is that of the random sample. And as you might infer, they obtain absolutely terrible results.
Click to expand...
And C- is not a very good grade.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Pretty much any well-informed commentators who are not part of the MSM.

In fact, taking the time to hear or read what a variety of them have to say and doing a little fact-checking on the side produces a far better perspective of objectivity than the main stream media which is much like hearing the same talking points parroted ad nauseam.

Sorry, Leaf, I won’t provide sources. I’ve been through this before with you.

I won’t permit the genetic fallacy the opportunity to rear its ugly head again. If you want to discuss particular arguments and facts, that is one thing. Dismissing the arguments and facts merely because of where they originate is not worth my time.
Click to expand...
And who is that, Alex Jones? Tyler Durden? Von Mises people?
 
Millie123 said:
Why do I need to listen to the entire speech again when I just read the whole thing and posted the link to it in my reply that you just quoted?
Click to expand...
Listen to the whole thing … including the intro by Rudi Guiliani. Watch it.

Trump departed from his text here and there and employed some sarcasm and facial expressions.

Easy to miss what the audience got.
 
PRmerger said:
Is it possible to be a Hillary apologist when you say you’re not going to vote for her?

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary–by Mark Shea

I dunno…it seems pretty clear that you’re NOT a Hillary apologist, but maybe that’s just me?

And even if he were a “Hillary apologist”, that doesn’t refute his statement. 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes because he is saying its a moral urgency for Catholics in swing states to vote for her as he considers Trump to be the greatest menace to the Oval Office. Shea has said repeatedly that he would vote for her if he lived in a swing state (he lives in Washington).
 
Peter_Plato said:
Pretty much any well-informed commentators who are not part of the MSM.

In fact, taking the time to hear or read what a variety of them have to say and doing a little fact-checking on the side produces a far better perspective of objectivity than the main stream media which is much like hearing the same talking points parroted ad nauseam.

Sorry, Leaf, I won’t provide sources. I’ve been through this before with you.

I won’t permit the genetic fallacy the opportunity to rear its ugly head again. If you want to discuss particular arguments and facts, that is one thing. Dismissing the arguments and facts merely because of where they originate is not worth my time.
Click to expand...
When facts are accepted on the authority of the one giving the facts, then it is no genetic fallacy to consider where they came from. And when sources are qualified based on their being “well-informed” where well-informed is defined as agreeing with what you already believe, that is a circular fallacy. You are not doing too well on your fallacies today.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
Yes because he is saying its a moral urgency for Catholics in swing states to vote for her as he considers Trump to be the greatest menace to the Oval Office. Shea has said repeatedly that he would vote for her if he lived in a swing state (he lives in Washington).
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

And if he is a Hillary Apologist, how does that make his comment wrong?

James White is a Protestant Apologist–in fact, he is a virulent anti-Catholic–but he says that the Bible is the Word of God.

Should we dismiss that comment as false because, hey, he’s a Protestant Apologist?

Or should we avoid the genetic fallacy and just look at the comment itself to examine it?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
When facts are accepted on the authority of the one giving the facts, then it is no genetic fallacy to consider where they came from. And when sources are qualified based on their being “well-informed” where well-informed is defined as agreeing with what you already believe, that is a circular fallacy. You are not doing too well on your fallacies today.
Click to expand...
When were “facts” the topic of discussion? When a conclusion is accepted merely on the grounds of someone’s authority without any analysis of how the particular conclusion follows or was determined, then it is a fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam, first described by John Locke apparently. (You can base that fact on the authority of Wikipedia… Oh, wait a minute Wikipedia might not have all its facts correct, so on second thought, don’t go on sheer authority alone. Check your facts! :mad:)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It is interesting that Wiki, in the link article above gives a scientific fact as a classic example of why relying upon authority is not such a good idea and a logical fallacy even for basic scientific facts, let alone logical arguments.
In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made, that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.
Click to expand...
But don’t go by my or Wiki’s authority on the subject, check it out for yourself.

I would add that I am doing just fine on my fallacies today. You may have fooled some in this thread who were relying purely upon your authoritative and authoritarian sounding rhetoric, but not I Leaf. I am a stickler when it comes to truth claims. Remember what PT Barnum said about fooling people. Oh, wait… was that Barnum who really said it? Best check that out, too, I suppose.
 
PRmerger said:
Fair enough.

And if he is a Hillary Apologist, how does that make his comment wrong?

James White is a Protestant Apologist–in fact, he is a virulent anti-Catholic–but he says that the Bible is the Word of God.

Should we dismiss that comment as false because, hey, he’s a Protestant Apologist?

Or should we avoid the genetic fallacy and just look at the comment itself to examine it?
Click to expand...
Speak to Leaf on this point, she is under the impression that authority is sufficient.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
…when sources are qualified based on their being “well-informed” where well-informed is defined as agreeing with what you already believe, that is a circular fallacy. You are not doing too well on your fallacies today.
Click to expand...
Since when does “well-informed” mean “agreeing with what you already believe?”

I think you are merely using words to mean what you want them to mean in order to convince me of something you want me to believe merely because you believe it. Oh, Leaf, I am sooooo disappointed that you of all people would try to manipulate me like that. :eek:

And your last comment, well that cuts deep. 😦

Strangers on Internet forums, just should NOT talk politics. Too much at stake. Potentially very harmful to the distant acquaintanceship that doesn’t even exist because of anonymity. 😃
 
Strydersroom said:
See: first rule of fight club
Click to expand...
Why stop there?

"Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!
Third rule of Fight Club: if someone yells “stop!”, goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.
Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight.
Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas.
Sixth rule: the fights are bare knuckle. No shirt, no shoes, no weapons.
Seventh rule: fights will go on as long as they have to.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.”

― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top