It really beats me how either of them passed the elections to be nominated by their own parties.
It really beats me how either of them passed the elections to be nominated by their own parties.
It's all very relative, Clinton lies about her emails to hide the influence she's tried to wield as Secretary of State in order to get funding for the Clinton Foundation which is 90% charity and 10% goes to her and her husband to enrich themselves. She was unfit to hold that office and is unfit to be president.
Trumps team has similarly deleted thousands of emails to hide his criminal activity in business, where he sustains himself simply by choosing not to pay people for services rendered. Entitled, idiotic thug who since you seem content to mention Bush makes him look scholarly.
The point is if you think Obama has considerably caused harm to the country than you'd have no reason to vote for Clinton, as she is essentially a continuation of him. Whatever I think of Clinton, I think the Americans were better off under Obama than they were Reagan, The Bushes or her Husband and therefore a continuation of that especially compared to the alternative is not the apocalypse.
Clinton it's money, with Trump it's just a case of reflecting how far Right wing the GOP has gradually gone in the last thirty years....Trump is very much a product of the Republican party's own making.Originally Posted by Goonermarvee
What kind of logic and reason is it to quote the following:It isn't, it's just comments like that which make me shake my head.
I'm not saying Clinton is honest by the way (although actually if you analyse the things they both say she does on average tell the truth more than Trump who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in his face).
The comments you see from an astonishing number of the electorate show an alarming inability to think logically. I think I related a conversation I had with someone in Washington at the tech conference I was at which went something like:
(preamble about how neither candidate is ideal)
Him: "I can't vote for Clinton though..."
Me: "Why not?"
Him: "She's a liar."
Me: "...Trump is a MASSIVE liar!"
Him: "Well...hasn't affected me"
Me:
I mean really. What kind of logic is that? How can you criticise candidate A for being a liar when candidate B is objectively an even bigger liar and then dismiss that so glibly.
And this from a coder, someone one would think is conversant in logic and reason.
Makes my head spin sometimes.
From this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37864490"I've got two degrees. I'm highly educated. We're not deplorables like Hillary Clinton thinks we are. [Trump] can be a bit of a loose cannon but I trust what he says, I think he's honest."
Then laugh at Americans in general;
When the same article contains the following?
"I think Trump is absolutely awful," she said, "I'm more scared of having him in office, because of how loose of a cannon he is," she told me.The article details a mix of pro-Clinton and pro-Trump prospective voters. Your logic and reason leads you to conclude that Americans are therefore laughable."I don't like either of them. I don't think Trump's got American values or Christian values," she said as she gestured her thumbs down.
You reinforce the idea with your anecdote, which may or may not have happened. You don't seem certain.
Then you berate the possibly real person who makes your head spin given his illogical conclusion that you may, or may not, have put in his real or unreal mouth.
And all the while, the one person displaying the least logic or reason shakes his head in despair at the splinter he finds in other eyes. Plank is the word most apt here.
Besides, what do you actually know about either candidate? You comment:
On average? What's the size of your sample data? What sources have you used to reach your conclusion? Over what time span have you measured the behaviour and veracity of both individuals? Logic and reason is what we are discussing here remember? Have you used logic and reason in reaching your conclusions?(although actually if you analyse the things they both say she does on average tell the truth more than Trump who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in his face)
I remind you. Your conclusions are:
Americans are laughable.
Clinton tells the truth more times than trump, on average.
Trump doesn't know what the truth is.
Big conclusions. Any methodology backing them up? Or is it all conjecture and regurgitation again?
Leaving Trump aside, because it's doubtful anyone who doesn't know him in person or hasn't followed his career closely or at least read in depth on the bloke would know that much about him, what we most certainly can conclude from the public record stretching back over 30 years is that Hilary Clinton is without doubt the most dishonest individual that has ever run for office in the United States. Hell, she's running for office whilst being investigated by the FBI. Now logically, reasonably, anyone who finds this woman in any way honest or trustworthy or capable of truth is unfamiliar with the facts and therefore incapable of making an informed judgement or, far worse, is ignoring the facts. And yet here we are, discussing Trump's dishonesty and wondering at the ability of Trump supporters to endorse their man.
I think you're right. Plenty of spinning going on here.
Für eure Sicherheit
Impressed you took that long to attempt a WUM.
I won't bother replying in kind
But I will just leave this here.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...p-truth-o-met/
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/...ump-unfit-lead
This reflects my feelings totally
And it does not even mention the hypocrisy of him called Hilary Clinton crooked when one considers his own crooked business dealings
Don't know what you mean by that. Trump is a figurehead for a growing movement of diverse groups and types who are sick to death of being screwed over and dictated to by the two sides of the same political coin. Trump has arrived in the right place at the right time but it could have been plenty of other potential candidates standing there provided they weren't the typical establishment hack. Plenty of people laid the groundwork over the last 8 years. I doubt half of Trump's supporters care much about the policies provided the establishment train is derailed or at least forced to slow. Plus there are powerful forces behind Trump now. The way in which Clinton has been taken out demonstrates there are far bigger punchers backing the trump campaign than the average guy down the street. He's had to face the entire establishment, including his own party, 90% of the media, the hilariously named intelligentsia, the corporate string pullers and the financial muscle of the Clinton machine but he's still come out on top. It's actually a remarkable story, whatever you think about the guy personally. The GOP was beaten down, the media has been destroyed, our chattering betters have been left wearing tin-foil hats as they speak of Russian plots and reds under the beds, the major corporations have kicked, screamed, threatened, but to no avail. The Clinton machine has been annihilated in the most spectacular fashion ever witnessed in American society and there's much more to come should there be any funny business with the election process. People may not like him, but the Trump story is absolutely remarkable for so many reasons. One of the main reasons being it has turned the phoney election process inside-out and smeared the guts across TV screens for public consumption. In this, at least, his campaign has performed a major public service.
Für eure Sicherheit
A WUM? I'm not winding you up. I'm calling you out directly. And as for your "truthometer", well I'll just leave this here for you.
I won't bother replying in kind
As more and more of Clinton's misdeeds are revealed on a daily basis, of course it makes sense for you to run to the political talking points. You are immune to reality. Everything has to be packed and labelled before you can consume it.
Für eure Sicherheit
That appears to be more of a temper tantrum piece than anything. I don't know why a soppy, left-wing rag like the New Statesman is so wound up by this anyway.
Für eure Sicherheit
Reply With Quote
