EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4305
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
The Bottle
242 Posts
I do not consider it "evidence" for Trump's lack of qualification. It is just a large ensemble of anecdotes by someone who spent time with him. Now that alone is enough for me to not take it too seriously, or at least consider the points but with a grain of salt. But to add to that, he already mentions that he is a lifelong liberal who never liked Trump's approach to business, and the first thing he ever wrote about Trump (before actually spending time with him) was a highly negative article. This already suggests a significant likelihood of bias. Now let me reiterate that the fact that this is all subjective anecdotal material is enough for me to take it with a huge grain of salt, even without the other characteristics about the author that make his motives look questionable. For me, this article already corroborates a lot of what I already suspect of Trump given what I've seen from his public speaking. I consider him to be entirely unsophisticated, he has a very tenuous grasp of issues, or severe lack of appreciation of the complexity of issues, and he's way too full of himself to take advice from people when he needs to. But, simply due to the article's nature, I cannot claim that I acquired useful substantive information from it, nor could I say that it would have swayed me in any way if I were strictly pro-Trump. Not only do my above points on the validity of the article stand, but I have seen way too many instances of the media being scandalously dishonest about Trump in ways that are much easier to catch, usually in the form of someone trying to project horrible traits on him by reading way too much into what he says. Which I think is good enough reason to be even more skeptical. I certainly don't think it's fair at all to accuse somebody of being stubborn in the face of new information, simply because they're not swayed by this article. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:14 The Bottle wrote: I'm not a fan of Trump at all, I think he would be a disastrous president. (Actually I'm not a fan of either candidate.) But I have to side with GGTemplar when it comes to this article. I do not consider it "evidence" for Trump's lack of qualification. It is just a large ensemble of anecdotes by someone who spent time with him. Now that alone is enough for me to not take it too seriously, or at least consider the points but with a grain of salt. But to add to that, he already mentions that he is a lifelong liberal who never liked Trump's approach to business, and the first thing he ever wrote about Trump (before actually spending time with him) was a highly negative article. This already suggests a significant likelihood of bias. Now let me reiterate, the fact that this is all subjective anecdotal material is enough for me to take it with a huge grain of salt, even without the other characteristics about the author that clearly make his motives look questionable. For me, this article already corroborates a lot of what I already suspect of Trump given what I've seen from his public speaking. I consider him to be entirely unsophisticated, he has a very tenuous grasp of issues, or severe lack of appreciation of the complexity of issues, and he's way too full of himself to take advice from people when he needs to. But, simply due to the article's nature, I cannot claim that I acquired useful substantive information from it, nor could I say that it would have swayed me in any way if I were strictly pro-Trump. Not only do my above points on the validity of the article stand, but I have seen way too many instances of the media being scandalously dishonest about Trump in ways that are much easier to catch, usually in the form of someone trying to project horrible traits on him by reading way too much into what he says. Which I think is good enough reason to be even more skeptical. I certainly don't think it's fair at all to accuse somebody of being stubborn in the face of new information, simply because they're not swayed by this article. I find it odd you consider the article corroborating evidence even though it's to be all but disregarded from the outset as biased. You don't need to declare the article invalid from the outset - just read the points made and address them. That you actually do accept the points as valid is telling. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10979 Posts
Its like porn, they just jizz all over america instead of each other, whcih is kinda the same... Seriously? Doesn't this make you guys cringe constantly? Most hardcoreultrarightwingracistnoonewantstobeseenwiththem organisations in switzerland are less patriotic than this... | ||
|
The Bottle
242 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:32 Doodsmack wrote: I find it odd you consider the article corroborating evidence even though it's to be all but disregarded from the outset as biased. You don't need to declare the article invalid from the outset - just read the points made and address them. That you actually do accept the points as valid is telling. Maybe I misspoke by saying "corroborates". What I should have said is "a lot of what this article wrote is consistent with my image of Trump given what I've seen from his public speaking". But that alone doesn't mean I have to take much of it seriously, consistency is not enough. I admit I only read the first half of the article and the last section, but from what I read, the article doesn't make nearly as many points as it does claims. And then opinions given those claims. There's really nothing I can say about the claims because I wasn't there with the author. There are some points he makes that I can discuss, but that wasn't really the point of my post. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The article is biased. But does it have any interesting information or insight? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:38 Velr wrote: I just watched the republican convention for the first time ever. Its like porn, they just jizz all over america instead of each other, whcih is kinda the same... Seriously? Doesn't this make you guys cringe constantly? Most hardcoreultrarightwingracistnoonewantstobeseenwiththem organisations in switzerland are less patriotic than this... The GOP national convention is a lesson in the the US national fragility. All bluster and the reaffirmation of American Exceptionalism. The democratic convention is the reverse, where everyone sort of praises America, but also talks about how much smarter they are than everyone else. And they prevent to be no spineless. But hey, at least the Democrats are not pushing to outlaw abortion again. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46635 Posts
 We have desperately missed Jon Stewart during this election season — but he’s coming back next week to cover the Republican National Convention. Vulture reports that Stewart will reunite with longtime partner in crime Stephen Colbert next week to offer coverage of the RNC on The Late Show. “Colbert is anchoring the Late Show from New York, so it doesn’t seem a stretch to imagine — or maybe the word is ‘pray’ — Stewart will be on location in Cleveland as a correspondent at the RNC,” Vulture speculates. This would be quite a role reversal, of course, since in the past Colbert has served as a correspondent while Stewart has served as anchor. Either way, we’ll know more about Stewart’s role on The Late Show by early next week. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/hes-back-jon-stewart-will-reunite-with-stephen-colbert-to-cover-the-rnc/ | ||
KwarK
United States44402 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:57 Plansix wrote: It seem to that people have an extremely high, almost unobtainable standard of neutrality before they will consider an article. It really limits the ability to talk about articles if everyone used that standard. The article is published by the New Yorker, which is known for its strong liberal bias, but inaccuracy. This isn't some random youtube video or one of the 4000 conservative/liberal think tanks out. The article is biased. But does it have any interesting information or insight? I don't think it really has much in the way of new information. So Trump didn't actually write the book which was a big part of building his image. Well that conforms entirely with my picture of him as someone who barely knows any words beyond a single syllable and has very few successes beyond those which naturally fall into the laps of well connected trust fund kids who are smart enough to hire smarter men to invest their money for them. But for the Republicans it's probably another example of smart old Trump paying someone to build his image which he now values as billions (according to his own testimony in lawsuits about his net worth) so the ROI on getting a book ghostwritten is insanely good. Yet another amazing business deal in which he pays someone to work for him and make him an awful lot of money. I feel like everyone knows what Trump is at this point. So the question becomes whether or not you like that (or hate Hillary more I guess). | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9254 Posts
On July 19 2016 06:38 Velr wrote: I just watched the republican convention for the first time ever. Its like porn, they just jizz all over america instead of each other, whcih is kinda the same... Seriously? Doesn't this make you guys cringe constantly? Most hardcoreultrarightwingracistnoonewantstobeseenwiththem organisations in switzerland are less patriotic than this... Yeah I watched a bit of it on Twitch but had to stop after 30mins, those speeches were completely ridiculous. Never seen anything like it, the unironic intensity of worshipping Reagan, the constitution, the founding fathers, the military, the American dream, and so on would put any religion to shame. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:30 ticklishmusic wrote: delegations from 11 states (basically the ones cruz won) submitted a petition for a roll call vote which was ignored. I thought 7 states requesting it was enough to force it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/samswey/status/755167747177406464 This is an alarming tweet, but I would hope to hear the context and what he "actually" said. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8216 Posts
On July 19 2016 04:59 oBlade wrote: I don't think most Trump supporters are in any doubt about the fact that he's someone with a strong ego, if that helps you understand people not seeing the New Yorker piece as a revelation. Having a strong ego and being a bombastic megalomaniac narcissist are two fairly different things. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote: This is an alarming tweet, but I would hope to hear the context and what he "actually" said. Here you go: | ||
|
KwarK
United States44402 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/samswey/status/755167747177406464 It helps when the history books you're reading are the history of white people. I imagine Chinese history books probably feature China pretty heavily. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 19 2016 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote: Having a strong ego and being a bombastic megalomaniac narcissist are two fairly different things. Republicans value strength in the same way gorillas do. There's a lot of emphasis placed on tiers, hierarchy, respect for authority, etc. Its a much more basic, primitive culture. It's less about the value of the directions than it is the strength and determination of the directions. Trump's willingness to present ideas as simple and easy to digest helps people who are ignorant and uneducated feel empowered. On July 19 2016 07:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Here you go: https://twitter.com/paulonabike/status/755169257386717184 Alright, so this is more so what I expected. He is saying Western civilization is best civilization, not white people are best people. No smoking gun or anything like that. This is just the borderline racism (note: not racism though) that has become standard for the GOP. | ||
| ||
