[Hindsite]

I did watch that debate when it happened. I'll admit I don't remember it that well, I'm mainly looking for foreign policy related stuff and since of course both candidates have very similar foreign policies (or the same foreign policy by default of not having defined one), they tend to spend most time talking about domestic issues. I did like the Schmoyoho and SNL version of debate one though, thought those were good.

But you're still not really explaining yourself here, Hindsite. What I mean is, you're saying Trump speaks to you, but you haven't articulate why.

Also, I found that video you linked from the so-called "rekt feminist videos" to be pretty annoying since it randomly interested flash animations of air horns and Hillary Clinton being "sniped" for no reason, then added a digital explosion over Hillary's head. Again, I'm uncertain who this speaks to. Probably the same people who make those Gowdy videos.

That said, the first thing Trump is talking about in the clip video you posted is government regulation. So presumably you like the fact that Trump wants less government regulation. Is that what "spoke" to you?

Too many government regulations is only one thing. Other things include building the wall to stop the flow of illegal drugs and bad hombres into the country, doing something about the unfair Obamacare, banning Muslim terrorist, lowering taxes, bringing jobs back, rebuilding roads, bridges, etc.,

Yeah, I like Shawn Hannity too.

It looks like selecting John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff to replace Priebus may have been a good move by Trump so far. Now, if he can find a good replacement to take over Homeland Security and stop the intelligence leaks, we may really have a secure nation again.

HalleuYah
Praise the Lord

[MB.]

Interesting.

So as a self described Trump supporter, it's not really any one policy per-say, but rather the "whole package" that you find appealing.

Would it be fair to use Steve Bannon's term of "economic nationalism" to describe Trump's platform, and your interest in it?

[Hindsite]

Interesting.

So as a self described Trump supporter, it's not really any one policy per-say, but rather the "whole package" that you find appealing.

Would it be fair to use Steve Bannon's term of "economic nationalism" to describe Trump's platform, and your interest in it?

Actually, I had never heard of Bannon before Trump got elected. But if "economic nationalism" means "America First" as Trump said, then I am all for it.

[SpecialOlympian]

So what Hillary didnt want it on the NFL dates or Trump just made the whole thing up to burn the NFL again?

It was dumber than that.

When the debates were coming Trump was pretty obviously trying to get out of them. Because he knows fuck about shit and isn't interested in learning anything, and preparing for a debate involves everything he hates: hard work, study, and attentiveness.

So shit started leaking out of his campaign about this obvious, large internal dispute and then Trump had to address it. It's literally no different from how Trump made the military transgender tweet: the media picked up on how he was fighting his own staff.

So the scheduling of the debates became a media narrative in and of itself.

Then the debates happened and Trump humped a chair and snorted like a cokehead who hasn't had a bump in 30 minutes the entire time.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

on reviewing the debate again I will say that I do recall being struck with Trump's trademark brashness. Some of Hillary's orthodox answers did seem like they were not going to be very effective, such as, the thing about "fact checking" Trump, I remember thinking how pointless this was and it seemed odd the Democrats thought this would be an effective response, for example.

This is characteristic of a fundamental divide in the attitudes of Americans - roughly Democrats and Republicans. Democrats think that facts and detailed policy plans are the most important thing, overriding feelings of what seems 'right', while Republicans appeal to vague instincts. So Democrats value education more, listen to climate scientists, and come up with planned policies - and think that, underlying any feelings they have, other people would also like intelligence to rule the day. Republicans go with gut feelings, nebulous ideas of what religion and patriotism tells them is the right thing to do, and a mistrust of too much theory. And a successful Republican candidate can use that very well in a campaign. In office, not so much. Thus they could spend 7 years saying "we must repeal Obamacare!" without ever developing a coherent policy.

[One Degree]

Actually the post about "176 shocking things Trump did" says it all.
Democrats see this as an appalling attack on the status quo.
Republicans see it as a slap in the face to the status quo.
The worse thing Democrats can do to themselves is to keep believing the myth that Trump won because his supporters are stupid. This is a transparent attempt to ignore the realities of your own lack of foresight of how your policy of identity politics was doomed to a huge backlash.

[SpecialOlympian]

Trump supporters are dumb though. Like, just pull the posts of any Trump supporter at random and read them.

[One Degree]

Trump supporters are dumb though. Like, just pull the posts of any Trump supporter at random and read them.

Both sides have stupid supporters, but dwelling on that disguises the real issues. The Democrats platform has been everyone is our friend except white males, and surprisingly this worked much longer than I expected. It should have dawned on the, smarter than Republicans, that the US was still dominated by white males. At some point, it was a certainty, they would say, "WTF? Enough is enough. This is our country too." And, most of their female loved ones would agree with them. To blame this on stupid Trump supporters is just stupid.

[4cal]

Actually the post about "176 shocking things Trump did" says it all.
Democrats see this as an appalling attack on the status quo.
Republicans see it as a slap in the face to the status quo.
The worse thing Democrats can do to themselves is to keep believing the myth that Trump won because his supporters are stupid. This is a transparent attempt to ignore the realities of your own lack of foresight of how your policy of identity politics was doomed to a huge backlash.

What would you call a voter who believed:

Mexico will pay for a border wall.
Donald Trump knows more about defeating ISIS than US Generals in theater
Donald Trump’s favorite book is the Bible
America isn’t great already

If you jut believed one of those things, you’re an idiot.

[One Degree]

What would you call a voter who believed:

Mexico will pay for a border wall.
Donald Trump knows more about defeating ISIS than US Generals in theater
Donald Trump’s favorite book is the Bible
America isn’t great already

If you jut believed one of those things, you’re an idiot.

Why would what I choose to believe make me an idiot? That is only logical if you believe your beliefs are superior to mine. The whole idea that you are superior because of your beliefs is a direct contradiction to a belief in equality. Liberal ideology is based upon hypocrisy.

[MB.]

Well if you are confronted by two positions and one position is a bunch of garbage spewed by Donald Trump that is a pack of disgusting lies said by a conartist, and the other position is an objective fact, I think it's fair to hazard that you would be acting irrationally- if not illogically I suppose- if you believed in the former but not the latter.

Yes, I think this would qualify someone for idiocy. The definition of idiocy is foolish or ignorant behavior. Believing in lies would certainly be a foolish thing to do, very foolish indeed if the liar is running for president. This is just good common sense.

[Finfinder]

Have you withdrawn your claim that the healthcare industry is 'screwed up', then? You appear to be saying that your problem is that Obama didn't lead you through how health insurance works. Oh well, maybe you should have found out by looking at all the countries in the world that have universal coverage.

No I haven't. You appear to be playing possum or are you just being obtuse and like to play with pronouns. My problem LOL it is the countries problem but you knew that.

[One Degree]

Well if you are confronted by two positions and one position is a bunch of garbage spewed by Donald Trump that is a pack of disgusting lies said by a conartist, and the other position is an objective fact, I think it's fair to hazard that you would be acting irrationally- if not illogically I suppose- if you believed in the former but not the latter.

Yes, I think this would qualify someone for idiocy. The definition of idiocy is foolish or ignorant behavior. Believing in lies would certainly be a foolish thing to do, very foolish indeed if the liar is running for president. This is just good common sense.

I would agree only if you are restricting the explanation to people in one society that has agreed upon what is acceptable. Christianity could be a lie, but that does not mean you are an idiot just because you believe in it. Idiocy is determined by your refusal to accept the norm. The norm is determined by what the majority believes. Anything the majority believes is the superior belief, regardless of any reasoning applied to it. Liberal ideology is attempting to codify guidelines for what is right. This is logical hypocrisy. Democracy says the majority is right regardless of any outside guidelines applied to it. You can not, therefore believe in Democratic equality and insist upon guidelines for that equality. Your post shows you already understand my position on this, but I clarified for other readers.

[Pants-of-dog]

..... Anything the majority believes is the superior belief, regardless of any reasoning applied to it. ....

So, when most people believed in a flat Earth, that was the superior belief, regardless of reality?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Have you withdrawn your claim that the healthcare industry is 'screwed up', then? You appear to be saying that your problem is that Obama didn't lead you through how health insurance works. Oh well, maybe you should have found out by looking at all the countries in the world that have universal coverage.

No I haven't. You appear to be playing possum or are you just being obtuse and like to play with pronouns. My problem LOL it is the countries problem but you knew that.

I have no idea why you think I'm "playing possum"; I've posted 3 times in this thread since you last did. I have no idea what you mean about "playing with pronouns". You said "my point is that if we wanted to insure the poor and the people with pre-existing conditions, and the middle class was going to have to pay for it, then why didn't they just say that from the start.", after saying "Yea they did but they lied to the American people about the whole process.". So your problem seems to be that you think they "lied" by not saying that health insurance involves people paying premiums even if they don't get ill, and because it's expensive, you can't get the poor to pay the full premium - as every other country in the world demonstrates. Yes, your problem was the middle class having to pay. You said so.

[SpecialOlympian]

You don't understand. You're persecuting me because I'm a white man. Why can't I start a white men club without being called racist? It is the greatest injustice of our time.

That's why I voted Trump. Not for the racism, but for the fact that he champions white men above all others.

[One Degree]

So, when most people believed in a flat Earth, that was the superior belief, regardless of reality?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Yes, flat earthers had the superior belief. Science serves humans. You are asking humans to serve science. What is the purpose of being human if not to enjoy our own lives? Whatever a group of humans decide is the right choice because they are unique humans. Why should my short life on this earth be determined by someone else's views? I prefer a community to make my life more enjoyable by sharing mutual interests and providing for our mutual welfare. Once the community becomes so large that my reality is a minority, then I am denied my humanity. It does not matter if science says one thing and I believe another. I am still being denied my uniqueness as an individual human.

[4cal]

[quote=“One Degree”]Why would what I choose to believe make me an idiot?
[/QUOTE]
For most people, beliefs are based on either upbringing (religion of example), experience (standing under something keeps you from getting wet in a rain storm for example), or educated conclusions based on a number of criteria such as experience, logic, and good old fashioned common sense (a girl scout would probably not stand a chance against a navy SEAL in combat but there is no guarantee that the SEAL wins).

For the upbringing that requires no proof; there is little that can be done to change one’s mind. See the Middle East.
For matters you SHOULD learn through experience, you’re simply an idiot if you don’t learn to come in out of out the rain.
As for voting for Trump when anyone with two working brain cells should know better…that makes you an idiot.

Sorry. I don’t make the rules of nature but we’re bound to live by them. And the proof of your idiocy is clear and present. We actually have a President who still believes he won the popular vote.

[quote=“One Degree”]
That is only logical if you believe your beliefs are superior to mine.
[/quote]
Uh…no.

When you believe that a pervert like Trump knows more about ISIS than Generals in theater, your beliefs on the matter are dubious. The consensus would favor those who think different.

[quote=“One Degree”]
The whole idea that you are superior because of your beliefs is a direct contradiction to a belief in equality. Liberal ideology is based upon hypocrisy.[/quote]



Thanks for the laugh. Meanwhile Conservatives such as yourself are paying a reality star Omarosa $200,000 a year without blinking an eye. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, flat earthers had the superior belief.

And with this, you have clarified your unsuitability for this forum. This is a debate forum. Here, logic, evidence, and truth are the objective. Debate is a tool for arriving at truth through dialogue. You are here eschewing truth in favour of popular opinion.

In your vocabulary, I would say that you are ignoring the norms that this community has decidied upon and are trying to impose your individual opinion.

Science serves humans. You are asking humans to serve science. What is the purpose of being human if not to enjoy our own lives? Whatever a group of humans decide is the right choice because they are unique humans. Why should my short life on this earth be determined by someone else's views? I prefer a community to make my life more enjoyable by sharing mutual interests and providing for our mutual welfare. Once the community becomes so large that my reality is a minority, then I am denied my humanity. It does not matter if science says one thing and I believe another. I am still being denied my uniqueness as an individual human.

These are all pretend victim tears about how you are oh so oppressed by science.

If you do not want to be forced to deal with logic, facts, evidence and truth, please do not frequent debate forums.

[4cal]

So, when most people believed in a flat Earth, that was the superior belief, regardless of reality?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Fantastic post.


Apparently the framers of the US Constitution were happy calling a black man 3/5 of a human being.
I’m sure for conservatives and those who think the document is the be all/end all…they’re quite happy about it and think it is superior..