|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 11 2016 10:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 10:36 Jormundr wrote:On March 11 2016 10:34 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:42 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:31 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 08:46 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I don't think you realize that you inadvertently agreed with me there. When you say that "you know exactly what the meaning is" when you say "the 787 is a smart aeroplane" -- that's the point: you should know exactly what the meaning is when Trump says "Islams hates America", and that meaning is that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. There is no logical mistake whatsoever; it's simply a matter of not being completely oblivious to what is actually being said. Yes, I'm saying in any other context you would be able to see the distinction between talking about a geopolitical force and making a universal statement about the adherents to it, except in this specific case you've been conditioned to overreact sharply to anything that could be even perceived as bigotry. You are repeating what you said before. I answered your point about Islam and Muslims being different. See below. Also, Islam is not a "geopolitical force" which you can reasonably anthropomorphize to have it hold the kind of sentiments Trump was talking about, unless by targeting its believers. On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 08:46 kwizach wrote:
With regards to your fallacious analogies, I know very well that Islam and Muslims are different -- one is a faith, the other is a group of people. One can very well honestly criticize Islam as a faith and social institution, or any other religion for that matter, without targeting believers per se. The point is that Trump is not doing that -- he's explicitly using Islam as a proxy to make a statement about Muslims, which is a tactic employed by the far-right everywhere. It would make zero sense to argue that Islam itself hates America (do tell me if you've discovered a mention of America somewhere in the Quran), and it's easily understandable that he's talking about the people who believe in Islam, who are the ones with agency and the knowledge of America's existence. In short, you're being deliberately obtuse, while Trump's bigotry in targeting Muslims through Islam could not be more obvious. What you're purporting to do here is read Trump's mind. I am doing my best to read people's words, not their minds. The geopolitical force people refer to when they use a word like Islam, a word that's a huge umbrella covering many things, is not contained within one holy book of the faith. It's like saying the USSR didn't "hate" the West because it wasn't codified in Marx. I am not reading Trump's mind any more than you are reading minds when you say that you know what "it's a smart airplane" means, and that you know the person is not saying it's the actual airplane that is capable of intelligent thought. If you want to be willfully obtuse about it, good for you. Are you saying your qualm is with the word "hate?" So now you're being willfully obtuse about what I'm saying? You said, I'm paraphrasing, that you have no trouble with the 787 example, granting that the word "smart" obviously has a different sense when used in the context of an aeroplane than with a person. Yet when the statement we're looking at is "Islam hates us," rather than wondering whether the word "hate" has any kind of different function in that context, you want to be able to claim the language used only applies to people, not abstractions, and therefore Trump was actually talking about all Muslims, or about Muslims generally in a prejudicial way (because it would supposedly never make sense to anthropomorphize an intangible construction like we do daily when talking about nations). I futilely put the question to you much earlier, for this very reason, as to what your response would have been if Rick Scott had gone on the record saying "Islam loves us." Like another poster mentioned, nations can be anthropomorphized without necessarily referring to their populations because there are other entities within the nation that can be associated with the anthropomorphization -- for example, their governments. In the case of Islam, however, if you are going to claim that it hates the U.S., you can hardly turn elsewhere than to its believers to attribute the origin of the hatred. Last time I checked, the Quran does not mention the U.S. But the governments are populated by people within the nation - so what you're doing sounds like special pleading to me. You used the Koran line before and it's ineffectual to anyone who understands that Christianity's influence as a force in the modern world is not restricted by what it says in Matthew, communism's influence in the world is not constrained by the words printed by Marx, and so forth. There are power structures in the Muslim world, Muslim countries, Muslim organizations, and so forth which lead us to be able to talk about the religion as a force in the world like any other. On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:
Also, with regards to the use of "smart" about an airplane, it is not a matter of using a different meaning of the word but of understanding where the attribution goes with regards to the smartness we're talking about (it's a smart airplane --> it was smartly designed --> the people responsible for the design did their job smartly). Likewise, the hatred Trump is talking about is attributed to the believers. That is why Trump himself attributed this hatred to "people" in the interview itself. That's not what it at all. It means the technology itself is responsive. Like a smartphone. The airplane is good at controlling itself and its systems. It can manage complicated variables by itself with simple inputs. On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:42 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:31 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 08:46 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
There is no such thing as a "geopolitical divide between Islam and the West". It's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation, on par with Huntington's repeatedly debunked Clash of civilizations. What I said is of course a generalization, but I think we may be living on different planets if you're claiming it's one that holds no water. Like I said: it's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation. Something being a rough generalization doesn't make it ignorant. Similarly, something being stupid doesn't make it bigoted. Being a generalization doesn't make a statement simplistic and ignorant. Your statement was those things, but not by virtue of being a generalization. Similarly, Trump's statement was bigoted, and not only stupid. What would be a more appropriate generalization, if you please - the world is in harmony? Why would denouncing the simplistic and ignorant nature of your initial statement mean that I believe the world in in harmony? There are armed groups waging war in the name of Islam in some regions, and they are opposed by both Western and non-Western powers. This does not make your initial statement accurate. It's not even a whole statement. I said "geopolitical divide between Islam and the West" and you jumped in telling me it was fake. I suffer you make a better generalization on that point that's as concise as 7 words. I don't think it's controversial that the two spheres oppose each other's influence. What you're saying here is largely irrelevant because at the end of the day we all know that Islam did not receive a 'great' rating from Señor Trump. You're also consistently leaving yuuuuuuuuuuuge gapes in your reasoning that leave much to be desired. Pretty much the blubbering we hear from so many in this thread and the media. "My reasoned argument against Trump is, "All you've just said is irrelevant and there as so many gaps (or gapes if you want) I don't even want to list them all." I need to check if MSNBC is hiring because this kind of response qualifies you for their analyst department.
You're slower than oBlade hon. At least try to play along? The best part about stumping is that literally everyone is can do it!
|
Carson endorsed Trump
my sides
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On March 11 2016 10:53 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 10:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 11 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 11 2016 09:52 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:50 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 11 2016 09:44 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 11 2016 09:07 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:
[quote]
You're speaking like a true fundamentalist.
You know that there is nuance in speech, you're just pretty certain that the group of people you disagree with (conservatives) don't have that nuance.
That habit you have of making assumptions on what people mean because that is how you believe those people think is the exact reason why we have bigots in society. Nowhere am I talking about conservatives in general. I am specifically talking about Trump, who is using a tactic widely employed by the far-right in Europe to target Muslims: use Islam as a proxy target instead, to avoid mentioning Muslims directly. But go ahead, do tell me what else Trump really meant when he said "Islam hates us" (not "radical Islam" but "Islam"), if he wasn't talking about Muslims. He even specifically mentioned the hatred of those "people". So when listening to an american politician, you make the generalization that he has the same opinions as politicians outside the US? When someone says something as abstract as "Islam Hates Us" Islam could mean a lot of things Us could mean a lot of things and even Hate could mean a lot of things And while he could be saying one thing, his followers could be understanding a different thing, and you could understand a different thing. Islam could mean Muslims, it could mean ISIS, it could mean IS, it could mean Terrorists, it could mean Muslim Americans, it could mean the Middle Easterners, it could mean Africans, etc... Hate could mean "at war with" it could mean "culturally disagreement" it could mean "are defensive of" it could mean "wants to invade" it could mean "wants to brainwash," etc... Us could mean "Americans" it could mean "the West" it could mean "the GOP" it could mean "my fellow birthers" it could mean "America as a nation" it could mean "America as a culture" it could mean "the West as a culture," etc... For the most part, the specific meaning of Muslims hate americans is not the only meaning, it is simply your understanding of what Trump said. You also don't know if *why* Trump said it. -Does he actually fear Muslims? -Does he want to incite his supporters? -Does he want to preach anti-islam ideas? -Does he simply say what he thinks his fans want to hear? -Does he believe what he say? -etc.... When the phrase is so vague, and the circumstance of when he said it so based on entertainment and pandering--you can't really make any concrete statement as to what it means. With respect to Islam, he mentions "people" in general in the interview (not only radicals). It is clear he is talking about Muslims. I'm not making a statement with regards to how his supporters understood it (I'll let you "figure it out", to quote Trump), I'm making a statement with regards to what Trump himself was saying. Why would Trump distinguish between Radicals and Non-Radicals when talking about Muslims to a crowd of conservatives? He is an entertainer after all--he even had his own TV Show. People itself could mean a lot of things and is used as often to define groups within a population as it is used to define the population itself. For example, when my friend sees something on facebook and says "people are stupid" he does not mean "Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists" are stupid nor does he even mean the totality of all human beings are stupid. He means that there are subsections of society, that he cannot specifically define, that do things that he does not agree with. Jumping to a conclusion about what Trump is specifically meaning from such scarce evidence of a few words and phrases in one random speech is absolutely stupid. And being forced to make conclusions that forces you take a side in the issue when the people he is asking about might affect your candidacy during reelection is also stupid. The subsection of society that Trump is talking about is Muslims, and he is being bigoted towards them. Like I said to oBlade, if you're going to be willfully ignorant about it, good for you. Being an entertainer doesn't prevent one from being bigoted or making bigoted statements. There are many things that make Trump a bigot. The phrase "Islam hates us" is not something, on its own, evidence of that. Especially when it doesn't say much. For the same reason my saying to my friend "I love you man" automatically mean I want to marry him/her. You would need a lot more context and a lot more evidence before that conclusion can be made. The context and the evidence was in the interview. You choose not to see it, we get it. On March 11 2016 10:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:42 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:31 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes, I'm saying in any other context you would be able to see the distinction between talking about a geopolitical force and making a universal statement about the adherents to it, except in this specific case you've been conditioned to overreact sharply to anything that could be even perceived as bigotry. You are repeating what you said before. I answered your point about Islam and Muslims being different. See below. Also, Islam is not a "geopolitical force" which you can reasonably anthropomorphize to have it hold the kind of sentiments Trump was talking about, unless by targeting its believers. On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What you're purporting to do here is read Trump's mind. I am doing my best to read people's words, not their minds. The geopolitical force people refer to when they use a word like Islam, a word that's a huge umbrella covering many things, is not contained within one holy book of the faith. It's like saying the USSR didn't "hate" the West because it wasn't codified in Marx. I am not reading Trump's mind any more than you are reading minds when you say that you know what "it's a smart airplane" means, and that you know the person is not saying it's the actual airplane that is capable of intelligent thought. If you want to be willfully obtuse about it, good for you. Are you saying your qualm is with the word "hate?" So now you're being willfully obtuse about what I'm saying? You said, I'm paraphrasing, that you have no trouble with the 787 example, granting that the word "smart" obviously has a different sense when used in the context of an aeroplane than with a person. Yet when the statement we're looking at is "Islam hates us," rather than wondering whether the word "hate" has any kind of different function in that context, you want to be able to claim the language used only applies to people, not abstractions, and therefore Trump was actually talking about all Muslims, or about Muslims generally in a prejudicial way (because it would supposedly never make sense to anthropomorphize an intangible construction like we do daily when talking about nations). I futilely put the question to you much earlier, for this very reason, as to what your response would have been if Rick Scott had gone on the record saying "Islam loves us." Like another poster mentioned, nations can be anthropomorphized without necessarily referring to their populations because there are other entities within the nation that can be associated with the anthropomorphization -- for example, their governments. In the case of Islam, however, if you are going to claim that it hates the U.S., you can hardly turn elsewhere than to its believers to attribute the origin of the hatred. Last time I checked, the Quran does not mention the U.S. Also, with regards to the use of "smart" about an airplane, it is not a matter of using a different meaning of the word but of understanding where the attribution goes with regards to the smartness we're talking about (it's a smart airplane --> it was smartly designed --> the people responsible for the design did their job smartly). Likewise, the hatred Trump is talking about is attributed to the believers. That is why Trump himself attributed this hatred to "people" in the interview itself. On March 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:42 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:31 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What I said is of course a generalization, but I think we may be living on different planets if you're claiming it's one that holds no water. Like I said: it's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation. Something being a rough generalization doesn't make it ignorant. Similarly, something being stupid doesn't make it bigoted. Being a generalization doesn't make a statement simplistic and ignorant. Your statement was those things, but not by virtue of being a generalization. Similarly, Trump's statement was bigoted, and not only stupid. What would be a more appropriate generalization, if you please - the world is in harmony? Why would denouncing the simplistic and ignorant nature of your initial statement mean that I believe the world in in harmony? There are armed groups waging war in the name of Islam in some regions, and they are opposed by both Western and non-Western powers. This does not make your initial statement accurate. Wait a minute--do you actually believe there is one unified group that constitutes "Islam"? Like, you don't realize that it has large swaths of sub groups, extremist groups, pacifists groups, and even country specific groups that are all very different from each other? You're only reason for believing that Trump is being bigoted in that phrase is because you yourself are ignorant about what Trump is being bigoted against. Are you purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying or something? Trump is the one grouping the believers in Islam together, not me. That's the entire point. You literally just said that Islam could only mean Muslims and then construe that that means all 1.5 billion muslims. That is just your ignorance being used to contextualize your bad analysis of a bad phrase by someone known for not being clear in what he says. I am saying the phrase Islam hates Us is relatively meaningless as a phrase and forcing a politician to make a stance on it is unfair to that politician. All that florida guy wants is to make sure he doesn't piss off either side of the voting blocks in his state and there he is being forced to make a stance either for Trump supporters or against trump supporters. That is not a fair position to put anyone in. Just to be clear here, if i say "americans are dumb as shit", that's fine because you assume that i don't mean literally every single american, but certain groups (which you specify for yourself)? That's not how it works. And no, it's certainly not unfair to a politician to force him to make a clear stance. It's what makes you fricking decide if you vote him, wtf. "Ima do whatever, maybe less or something else" is hardly a statement that someone gets elected on. edit: someone mentioned nuances btw, trump is not someone who gives a shit about nuances. Every. Single. Statement. is. Absolute. Every single time. Ffs, he might have words, even the best words, but he still argues like a 12 year old. Most of them can't even pronounce nuance, let alone use them.
Was talking about the Florida politican being forced to make a clear stance of whether or not he supports trump. Since he was not sure who would win the general, he wanted to hedge his bets to not comment for or against him. So the reporter restated trump's comment that "Islam hates us" and forced the politician to have a public opinion on it. If he went against trump, then he loses that voting block. If he went with trump, he loses the liberal voting block. I am of the opinion that dragging politicians into whether or not they agree with another politicians off the cuff remarks to a constituency that is not being talked to at that moment in time--is stupid.
People in this thread then makes the assumption that there's only one possible meaning to that phrase, and that the Florida politician should have just went against that specific meaning to that phrase. And I wanted to point out that there is a lot of meanings to that phrase, and its only the meaning they believe it to mean because of Trump. Had Bin Laden said the phrase "Islam hates us" the meaning would complete shift (as an example).
I then point out that making a generalized conclusion on a phrase just because of your preconceived notions of the group who said it, is fairly ignorant and is a very fundamentalist way to see the world.
Now they are calling me a trump supporter. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
|
On March 11 2016 10:59 m4ini wrote:
It's hardly surprising considering the gaps trump himself leaves, no? Look at this discussion that's happening right now. Trump states: Islam hates US. Over a couple of pages people bend over backwards to try and justify how he actually didn't mean that, accusing others of being "mind readers" while apparently knowing what he thought when he said it, talking about how you'd need to read between the lines, nuances etc etc - all in regards to a sentence that couldn't be clearer.
There doesn't even need to be a discussion.
I think the people you're talking about are actually arguing he means exactly what he said, rather than something else ("All Muslims hate us" - it was "us" not USA, if you listen to the quote the antecedent is the West - or "Muslims in general hate us").
And yes, like the guy above me says, the main issue was supposed to be throwing Rick Scott under the bus as some kind of bigot because he didn't want to answer a question which, as Joe Scarborough phrased it, was very arguably based on a strawman.
|
On March 11 2016 10:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 10:56 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2016 10:36 Jormundr wrote:On March 11 2016 10:34 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:42 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:31 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes, I'm saying in any other context you would be able to see the distinction between talking about a geopolitical force and making a universal statement about the adherents to it, except in this specific case you've been conditioned to overreact sharply to anything that could be even perceived as bigotry. You are repeating what you said before. I answered your point about Islam and Muslims being different. See below. Also, Islam is not a "geopolitical force" which you can reasonably anthropomorphize to have it hold the kind of sentiments Trump was talking about, unless by targeting its believers. On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What you're purporting to do here is read Trump's mind. I am doing my best to read people's words, not their minds. The geopolitical force people refer to when they use a word like Islam, a word that's a huge umbrella covering many things, is not contained within one holy book of the faith. It's like saying the USSR didn't "hate" the West because it wasn't codified in Marx. I am not reading Trump's mind any more than you are reading minds when you say that you know what "it's a smart airplane" means, and that you know the person is not saying it's the actual airplane that is capable of intelligent thought. If you want to be willfully obtuse about it, good for you. Are you saying your qualm is with the word "hate?" So now you're being willfully obtuse about what I'm saying? You said, I'm paraphrasing, that you have no trouble with the 787 example, granting that the word "smart" obviously has a different sense when used in the context of an aeroplane than with a person. Yet when the statement we're looking at is "Islam hates us," rather than wondering whether the word "hate" has any kind of different function in that context, you want to be able to claim the language used only applies to people, not abstractions, and therefore Trump was actually talking about all Muslims, or about Muslims generally in a prejudicial way (because it would supposedly never make sense to anthropomorphize an intangible construction like we do daily when talking about nations). I futilely put the question to you much earlier, for this very reason, as to what your response would have been if Rick Scott had gone on the record saying "Islam loves us." Like another poster mentioned, nations can be anthropomorphized without necessarily referring to their populations because there are other entities within the nation that can be associated with the anthropomorphization -- for example, their governments. In the case of Islam, however, if you are going to claim that it hates the U.S., you can hardly turn elsewhere than to its believers to attribute the origin of the hatred. Last time I checked, the Quran does not mention the U.S. But the governments are populated by people within the nation - so what you're doing sounds like special pleading to me. You used the Koran line before and it's ineffectual to anyone who understands that Christianity's influence as a force in the modern world is not restricted by what it says in Matthew, communism's influence in the world is not constrained by the words printed by Marx, and so forth. There are power structures in the Muslim world, Muslim countries, Muslim organizations, and so forth which lead us to be able to talk about the religion as a force in the world like any other. On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:
Also, with regards to the use of "smart" about an airplane, it is not a matter of using a different meaning of the word but of understanding where the attribution goes with regards to the smartness we're talking about (it's a smart airplane --> it was smartly designed --> the people responsible for the design did their job smartly). Likewise, the hatred Trump is talking about is attributed to the believers. That is why Trump himself attributed this hatred to "people" in the interview itself. That's not what it at all. It means the technology itself is responsive. Like a smartphone. The airplane is good at controlling itself and its systems. It can manage complicated variables by itself with simple inputs. On March 11 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:58 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:42 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 09:31 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What I said is of course a generalization, but I think we may be living on different planets if you're claiming it's one that holds no water. Like I said: it's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation. Something being a rough generalization doesn't make it ignorant. Similarly, something being stupid doesn't make it bigoted. Being a generalization doesn't make a statement simplistic and ignorant. Your statement was those things, but not by virtue of being a generalization. Similarly, Trump's statement was bigoted, and not only stupid. What would be a more appropriate generalization, if you please - the world is in harmony? Why would denouncing the simplistic and ignorant nature of your initial statement mean that I believe the world in in harmony? There are armed groups waging war in the name of Islam in some regions, and they are opposed by both Western and non-Western powers. This does not make your initial statement accurate. It's not even a whole statement. I said "geopolitical divide between Islam and the West" and you jumped in telling me it was fake. I suffer you make a better generalization on that point that's as concise as 7 words. I don't think it's controversial that the two spheres oppose each other's influence. What you're saying here is largely irrelevant because at the end of the day we all know that Islam did not receive a 'great' rating from Señor Trump. You're also consistently leaving yuuuuuuuuuuuge gapes in your reasoning that leave much to be desired. Pretty much the blubbering we hear from so many in this thread and the media. "My reasoned argument against Trump is, "All you've just said is irrelevant and there as so many gaps (or gapes if you want) I don't even want to list them all." I need to check if MSNBC is hiring because this kind of response qualifies you for their analyst department. It's hardly surprising considering the gaps trump himself leaves, no? Look at this discussion that's happening right now. Trump states: Islam hates US. Over a couple of pages people bend over backwards to try and justify how he actually didn't mean that, accusing others of being "mind readers" while apparently knowing what he thought when he said it, talking about how you'd need to read between the lines, nuances etc etc - all in regards to a sentence that couldn't be clearer. There doesn't even need to be a discussion.
Assuming things are already decided is the first step to ending critical thinking.
|
Yeah people needs to hit Donald Trump on actual logistics of his plans instead of character assassination by lying.
A lot of you guys have your priorities on the wrong things.
|
Rah rah rah PROTECTIONISM rah rah rah!
|
Wow, is Cruz seriously dropping the negotiate word? LOL. I can't believe it. They're just trying to copy him at this point.
|
What's with all this protectionist bs.
|
Was talking about the Florida politican being forced to make a clear stance of whether or not he supports trump. Since he was not sure who would win the general, he wanted to hedge his bets to not comment for or against him. So the reporter restated trump's comment that "Islam hates us" and forced the politician to have a public opinion on it. If he went against trump, then he loses that voting block. If he went with trump, he loses the liberal voting block. I am of the opinion that dragging politicians into whether or not they agree with another politicians off the cuff remarks to a constituency that is not being talked to at that moment in time--is stupid.
But it's not, that's the point. It wasn't just a question if he thinks trumps statement was dumb or not. It also is a question wether or not he agrees with that statement. Something that is rather important to know for voters. Ever seen a candidate say "well i can be whatever you want", and "i don't really do policies and stuff, because you know, i want voters from all bases"? I'm pretty sure that you know the answer to that, you seem like a smart person.
His "answer" is literally the worst thing you can do in an election. Simply because you lose voters who don't trust that you represent them adequately. My impression of him is that of a slimy weasel, kissassing his way to power. Which he clearly is doing.
That's not something i'd elect, honestly.
Assuming things are already decided is the first step to ending critical thinking.
Yeah. Especially considering trumps "deep personality", which always comes down to "brown people are bad, we build walls and obama is stupid - also i have words". You seem to miss that this wasn't the first anti-islam/muslim comment.
|
On March 11 2016 11:09 Introvert wrote:
What's with all this protectionist bs.
Trump has won the argument, and everyone knows it.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as ive said the trade issue is just enormous this time around.
|
The Justice Department on Thursday filed its latest response to Apple in the fight over iPhone encryption, calling the tech giant's rhetoric in the San Bernardino, California, case "false" and "corrosive" of institutions that safeguard rights.
The debate surrounds whether Apple should comply with a court order to help authorities unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino attack, which left 14 people dead.
"Here, Apple deliberately raised technological barriers that now stand between a lawful warrant and an iPhone containing evidence related to the terrorist mass murder of 14 Americans. Apple alone can remove those barriers so that the FBI can search the phone, and it can do so without undue burden," the DOJ wrote in the filing.
Apple is due to face the FBI in court later this month. The company, which has said it would have to create software to allow investigators to crack the phone, has argued that doing so could create a dangerous precedent. In a call with reporters Thursday, Apple senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell said the DOJ has become "so desperate" that it has "thrown all decorum to the wind.
"The tone of the brief reads like an indictment," he said.
Sewell called the brief an "unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple." In the call, attorneys for Apple said they plan to file a reply brief, which is due March 15. The attorneys reiterated Apple's position that the disagreement should not be settled in the court system. CNBC
The DOJ rhetoric in the brief lays it on thick. Like, really thick. Full text is embedded in the linked page.
|
So they will wall build a wall, except for Rubio? Maybe Rubio should drop out.
|
Great deflection by Trump on the common core issue.
|
There is a sharp contrast in Trump's tone tonight versus prior debates. The run for the middle begins.
|
On March 11 2016 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
There is a sharp contrast in Trump's tone tonight versus prior debates. The run for the middle begins.
Because he already won. He is targeting republican politicians, independents and democrats now.
All they can try is to attack him personally, and hope he loses his cool or his mojo. But that hasn't worked so far. And they aren't doing anything. Probably they all care about how they lose most gracefully.
Attacking Trump may not have worked, debating him on policy also doesn't. But I agree, not attacking Trump means Trump won't make them look like losers.
|
On March 11 2016 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
There is a sharp contrast in Trump's tone tonight versus prior debates. The run for the middle begins.
The whole tone of the debate is different. We'll see how it turns out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
