(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 There are experts and intellectuals on both sides, some of whom support what Donald Trump says and agree with him when he contradicts other experts and intellectuals.Where? Do you have a nonpartisan study supporting the claims he makes about his economic and healthcare plans? From what I could find, studies were pretty heavily stacked against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 A nonpartisan study by definition is not for or against either side, so it doesn't make sense to ask me to find nonpartisan examples of Trump-supporting experts and intellectuals. Also note that I'm referring to experts and intellectuals in a broad sense (not necessarily within the field of political science) to address the notion of "Trump vs. experts and intellectuals (in general)" being an actual conflict when it isn't. http://www.pewresearch.org/ comes to mind as a good example of what I'd be willing to call nonpartisan, because it presents data with regards to both candidates without spinning it for or against either. What do you mean by "From what I could find, studies were pretty heavily stacked against him" and where are you looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 So Anon people got a hold of HRC's 33k Deleted emails apparently? Some birthday present for the witch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCR_CAT Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 A nonpartisan study by definition is not for or against either side, so it doesn't make sense to ask me to find nonpartisan examples of Trump-supporting experts and intellectuals. Also note that I'm referring to experts and intellectuals in a broad sense (not necessarily within the field of political science) to address the notion of "Trump vs. experts and intellectuals (in general)" being an actual conflict when it isn't. What? Where are you making this connection?? Giga asked if there were studies that were consistent with Trump's claim. If I were to say "The sky is blue" and several studies confirmed "The sky is indeed blue", then those studies are "backing" my claims. They aren't supporting me, they don't even know who tf I am. When Giga says "a non-partisan study backing his claims", he 's not asking for Trump-supporting experts; he's asking for unbiased studies that are consistent with his claims and "back" them. More or less, we're calling you out on your claim that expert sources that you could cite and put into a university paper and it'll work out all fine and dandy are divided (implicitly 50/50, but you never said so, so we won't assume that) as to whether his claims and policies are actually sound (both valid and true). And if so, it would be best to actually cite these studies that you're seeing are divided (just as Giga should be citing the studies/experts that are against his claims), otherwise you're just talking nonsense claims based off nothing but speculation and hearsay for all we know. And I will say it again: Verifying if a fact/claim is true/sound isn't as simple as taking a bunch of experts and weighing the overall consensus among them to see if it's true or not. You need to look into the source, see if it's actually one worth taking seriously, if there's any kind of biases involved, and what they're study is based upon. For polls/graphs, you need to look into the sample population to see if it's large enough, diverse enough, and random enough to really be a good estimate of the trend it's claiming. An example would be if you were to look into climate change, say, and saw one expert say "Yo, it's totally a thing" and another expert say "Actually it's not". You could just call it a day and say "Well, looks like the experts are divided!" and conclude that there's no substantial conclusion to be made from the studies. OR, you can look into said "experts" and find one is actually just a well-known name that was paid off by a company to dump a false claim to stop the population from believing the true study. And yes, this happens a lot in a lot of situations. That's why it's very important to look into who's saying what and why to see if there's any reason to value that claim. So again, please take the time to look into the sources. Don't go off of any grand conclusion that "all experts are wrong because some are biased" or anything like that. And in regards to the topic, your claim is that the experts are divided on Trump's claim. Please cite this and show if that really is the case; and Giga you should be citing experts to show if it isn't as well. Otherwise, for both of you, there's nothing suggesting that I should take what either of you is saying seriously without any hard evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 ^You clearly didn't read my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 The problem is VCR the same economic and globalist experts who are calling doom and gloom on Trump have been consistently wrong for nearly 2 decades now Brexit was just the latest slap in the face for them^You clearly didn't read my post.Get used to it Where? Do you have a nonpartisan study supporting the claims he makes about his economic and healthcare plans? From what I could find, studies were pretty heavily stacked against him.My question, since you ignored it last time I asked, is why should we give credence to these "pundits" when they've been wrong on everything from Iraq to ISIS to the bubbles to Brexit? The boy has cried wolf too many times Edit: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30774 Neera Tanden on March 3, 2015, the day the NYT broke the HRC email server story: "they wanted to get away with it" Edit 2: If you truly care Giga you should give this a read to understand were Pol is coming from https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-the-foreign-policy-establishment-spoiling-for-more-war-look-at-their-donors/ Edit 3: funk, make America like Britain with regards to guns? FML all the rumors were right about her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 Where? Do you have a nonpartisan study supporting the claims he makes about his economic and healthcare plans? From what I could find, studies were pretty heavily stacked against him.Late reply but sure, there's a article by the CATO institute that I believe makes sense on why it's pretty fine, and another from CNBC and WSJ: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/donald-trump-pushes-fiscally-sound-economic-planhttp://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/06/kudlow-donald-trump-is-the-middle-class-growth-candidate.htmlhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/a-vote-for-trump-is-a-vote-for-growth-1477353601 Sure the trade deal is almost universally panned(it honestly is more nonsense the more I read it), but reducing taxes and giving businesses more money to hire more people and grow businesses instead of growing the national debt as is happening now is almost definitely a good deal, especially considering that the people that will get hired are those with few skills or are poor or etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted October 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/democrats-2020-attacks-gop-challengers-230340 How about the next presidential election? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCR_CAT Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 ^You clearly didn't read my post. No, I did. You responded to Giga saying "Do you have a nonpartisan study supporting the claims he makes about his economic and healthcare plans?" by saying "What's the point of it being nonpartisan if they support Trump?". You clearly did not understand what Giga, or for that matter, what I, am trying to say; which is: Do you know of any published studies conducted by nonpartisan organizations that support Trump's claims" Now, you did cite an organization that you believe to be a good example of a nonpartisan organization, but you did not cite studies conducted by nonpartisan organizations that support Trump's claims. Thankfully, mido has your back with fully understanding what Giga was saying; because somewhere down the line you didn't make the proper connection on what was being communicated. The problem is VCR... Speaking of didn't read posts, I wasn't making any argument for/against the current topic at hand, but asking for proper citation and references to back what your claims are being based on. Speaking of which... the same economic and globalist experts who are calling doom and gloom on Trump have been consistently wrong for nearly 2 decades now Brexit was just the latest slap in the face for them I will neither agree nor disagree with this until your research/evidence of this is shown. Make no mistake, I'm not automatically saying you're wrong; but seeing as this is debates you need to do more than just throw out a baseless claim. I trust that this isn't just something you're saying for the sake of saying it, as you have had a good record of sharing your sources with your statements. Please keep that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted October 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 So before people start shouting "rigged" in this thread I want to bring this up just to make sure if that is a problem among you guys; http://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499450796/some-machines-are-flipping-votes-but-that-doesnt-mean-theyre-rigged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 Only way HRC is gonna win Nevada is to blow enough smoke out of Clark county given that Washoe is trending Trump this year. Funny how the malfunctions are happening there of all places. Sis had the same problem with "old" machines today, and had to get a paper ballot. She too lives in a district that HRC badly needs to win in order to carry NC The problem Crt is that 1) the votes always seem to malfunction in the favor of the democrats and 2) In Texas atleast they refused to give paper ballots to people. Just you wait, there'll be a lot of this bullshit happening in Philly given that they're tied in Pittsburgh I will neither agree nor disagree with this until your research/evidence of this is shown. Make no mistake, I'm not automatically saying you're wrong; but seeing as this is debates you need to do more than just throw out a baseless claim. I trust that this isn't just something you're saying for the sake of saying it, as you have had a good record of sharing your sources with your statements. Please keep that up.What would you like as proof? Mossad warning the US of hijackers on planes and our brilliant intelligence agencies ignoring that? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html We all know about the Iraq war and how that turned out http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/ Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/09/city-banks-revise-brexit-doom-and-gloom-forecasts I'm not sure what exactly you want here given that they were all pretty well known off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCR_CAT Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 Evidence Okay, thank you; this I can actually discuss with. I don't have much time atm, so I'll just be addressing what I can. Mossad warning the US of hijackers on planes and our brilliant intelligence agencies ignoring that? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html I've read -MOST- of the article, so if there was a key quote I missed, please let me know. [spoiler=Discussing the source itself]Now, in regards to this, there a few key parts I've noticed in regards to the warnings: "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official. Immediately after that paragraph, the article continues to go on to say "The CIA has said that it had no hard information that would have led to the prevention of the hijacking". Now, I can't say what the warning itself entirely entailed of (the article in question doesn't give a full transcript of the transmission Israel sent to the US), but right now it sounds like they didn't know when/where or particularly what the attack was going to look like. USA is a big, big country; taking the measures to stop what really sounds like a very vague attack would be too extreme to really make a difference. The FBI says that the attack was conducted by suspected cells that were inside of the US nation, but again, there apparently wasn't any evidence that they knew these cells would be the ones conducting the attack, or even how to really get these people without overstepping their constitutional boundaries. Now, this isn't to say that Israel didn't know what was what in what was going on; if they sent a warning of a terrorist attack before 9/11, then they were absolutely right in their warning. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like enough information was given for the CIA or US government to really do anything about it without taking very extreme measures; even trying to nail down a 200-man cell in a country that large in a short amount of time would be extremely difficult. The article actually gives an account of what was happening on the intelligence/security end of matters during the attack itself, and it doesn't sound like there was much they could've done to really stop what was going on. At the time, the finger was pointed and blamed at the CIA for not being able to prevent the attack; but without knowing exactly what the warning the Israeli government gave the US, and considering that the article makes it sound like the warning itself didn't contain enough information to properly work off of, it doesn't seem like there was much the CIA could've done to prevent the attack in the first place. Overall, it's a bit of a jump to say that the intelligence agencies ignored the warning; it's very reasonable that they heeded the warning, but there just wasn't much they could do with it. There's only so much you can do to prepare for an attack that you don't know where, when, or how it's going to manifest; especially in a country as large as the US with as many valid and possible targets. Now, to bring this back to Trump denouncing the CIA and (assuming) these were the grounds that his claims are based upon, there's a lot of reasons why this doesn't work with what he's going on about. First off, as a reason to discredit the CIA and intelligence agencies, it's looking at what the CIA was during the Bush administration (that NBC link isn't working for me, btw, but I'll assume it's about the false claims of WMD's in Iraq). Unfortunately, this isn't 2001 or 2003; this is 2016 where I'm sure within min. 13 years some significant changes have happened. And again, beyond the dated nature of these events, instances of mistakes are not adequate enough to completely discredit a given person/organization. Everyone can be wrong in a given moment; it's when they're consistently wrong that the issue of "can we trust them" becomes a lot more apparent. In regards to Brexit and the economic happenings there, I'm honestly going to need to look into it more to get a better understanding of who was saying what, and why they were saying it. Again, it's possible that they had good reason to make the claims they made, but ended up being wrong regardless (this can happen to the best people, again). And also, like I said previously; when someone's wrong once, it's not an issue to their credibility. It's when they're wrong consistently that it becomes a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 "I have a duty to report it" - Winter I guess I do too! Here's a nice little list. Possible title:Projection and Hypocrisy, a Trump Campaign Story Disclaimer: There might be multiple sources saying the same thing in these, as well as some overlap. That's merely to discourage excusing it or disregarding it outright as partisan spin. Some of the titles here are sensationalist and not entirely accurate, so I advise reading the actual article if it seems "too crazy." The overlap is mostly unavoidable because some fall into multiple categories. Curbing Freedom of Speech and the Press (or inciting violence to achieve the same effect):https://thinkprogress.org/trump-first-amendment-too-much-protection-37e72ee16ea2#.3jg023d6uhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-would-absolutelyopen-libel-laws-so-person-mecan-bring-lawsuitshttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendmenthttp://www.complex.com/life/2016/08/donald-trump-promises-ban-porn-if-elected-presidenthttp://dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/trump-if-im-president-youre-going-to-see-merry-christmas-in-department-stores-video/http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-on-blacklivesmatter-protester-at-rally-maybe-he-should-have-been-roughed-up/http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/23/donald-trump-on-protester-id-like-to-punch-him-in-the-face/http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/trump-putin-killing-reporters/http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/politics/paladinos-lynch-lorettalynch-tweet-introduces-him-to-america-20160706Undermining Freedom of Religion:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/donald-trump-vows-fight-christianity-freedom-relig/http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/11/trump-pronounces-america-judeo-christian-nation-thats-is.html Supporting Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Torture:https://thinkprogress.org/lethal-injection-is-too-comfortable-what-criminal-justice-could-look-like-under-president-trump-1e54b2bbb9de#.jz8b9klnahttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-responds-istanbul-waterboarding-torturehttp://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/trump-waterboarding-it-works-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-ithttp://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/ Supporting War Crimes and Inciting War In General: http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/trump-oreilly-declare-world-war-iii -Literally the same thing people accuse Hillary of wanting to do.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/donald-trump-bill-o-reilly-declare-world-war-scenario-article-1.2712682https://thinkprogress.org/trump-i-would-intentionally-kill-families-to-defeat-isis-b5484a36a7a2#.ssdrvlmm5http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-says-hed-force-us-military-commit-war/http://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-us-should-shoot-russian-planes-if-putin-calls-fail-454902http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/04/donald_trumps_first_tv_ad_of_the_2016_campaign.htmlActual Literal Treason:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clientshttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/top-trump-aide-led-the-torturers-lobby.htmlhttp://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trumps-top-campaign-adviser-made-millions-arms-dealers-warlords-dictators-andhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=0http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html (disclaimer: I think the embargo is stupid)Inciting Violence:http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/11/media-highlight-trumps-role-in-inspiring-violen/209176 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/5/donald-trump-gives-supporters-permissions-be-viole/ (what the f***???) http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#WNYdU4a_9iqE http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/13/cruz-trump-is-encouraging-people-to-violence/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913 http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.htmlttphttp://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/trump-gives-supporters-permission-to-be-violent-with-protesters-if-you-hurt-them-ill-defend-you-in-court/http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/donald-trump-basically-encouraging-violence-nowhttp://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters-offers-to-pay-legal-fees/http://gothamist.com/2016/03/13/donald_trump_encourages_violent_sup.phphttp://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violenthttp://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/escalating-aggression-marks-trump-s-rhetoric-642743363967http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/donald-trump-protesters-rally-violencehttp://gokicker.com/2016/03/14/oh-yes-donald-trump-definitely-encourages-violence-heres-evidence/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/donald-trump-campaign-violence-condoned-rally-incidents-reporter-assaultwww.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-supporters-hate-map-tracing-acts-harrassment-and-violence-rallies-coast-coasthttp://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/03/_13_times_trump_or_his_supporters_got_ugly_at_his_events/http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/massive_melee_erupts_outside_donald_trumps_first_campaign_rally_in_california/What to take away from this: He actually literally encouraged violence himself irrespective of what the DNC planted. Encouraging Voter Intimidation:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-poll-watching-plan-stirs-voter-intimidation-fears-n631261 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/donald-trump-voting-election-rigging.html?_r=0Bonus points: Explain to the class why this is any better than voter fraud, regardless of the likelihood that it simply doesn't happen in the way the Project Veritas video claims. It was hard finding some of these because I had to wade through mountains of articles on how awful Trump's supporters act. This isn't about them, although I did include articles on why they act the way they do. This is why Trump himself demonstrates a multitude of similarities to how the nazis acted. This is also a semi-comprehensive list on why Trump is an awful candidate outside of PC issues. These are positions he is simply wrong on regardless of your views on immigration, economic reform, etc etc. He could actually be right on those. These are things you cannot defend without willfully misinterpreting them or denying they ever happened. I got most of these from a megapost on reddit and tumblr, I just didn't link to it so specific articles inside of those posts couldn't be ignored as easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 No, I did. You responded to Giga saying "Do you have a nonpartisan study supporting the claims he makes about his economic and healthcare plans?" by saying "What's the point of it being nonpartisan if they support Trump?". You clearly did not understand what Giga, or for that matter, what I, am trying to say; which is: Do you know of any published studies conducted by nonpartisan organizations that support Trump's claims" Now, you did cite an organization that you believe to be a good example of a nonpartisan organization, but you did not cite studies conducted by nonpartisan organizations that support Trump's claims. I am referring to experts and intellectuals in a broad sense (beyond specialization in politics, which makes their ability to conduct such studies entirely irrelevant). You and Giga asked that I cite *nonpartisan political experts* when I was referring to *partisan nonpolitical experts*, and it is wrong to conflate those groups. You and Giga both missed the point, the difference is that you managed to after the clarification. I am simply asking for an admission that intellectuals and/or experts *of any type* exist that are in favour of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I am referring to experts and intellectuals in a broad sense (beyond specialization in politics, which makes their ability to conduct such studies entirely irrelevant). You and Giga asked that I cite *nonpartisan political experts* when I was referring to *partisan nonpolitical experts*, and it is wrong to conflate those groups. You and Giga both missed the point, the difference is that you managed to after the clarification. I am simply asking for an admission that intellectuals and/or experts *of any type* exist that are in favour of Trump.Well yeah. Plenty of people are in favor in Trump, may they be intellectual or not. I am referring to studies. He has claimed figures that simply aren't supported by the evidence in its respective field. I'm not saying that nobody intelligent supports him, I am saying that he states facts that simply are not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 "I have a duty to report it" - Winter I guess I do too! Here's a nice little list. Possible title:Projection and Hypocrisy, a Trump Campaign Story Disclaimer: There might be multiple sources saying the same thing in these, as well as some overlap. That's merely to discourage excusing it or disregarding it outright as partisan spin. Some of the titles here are sensationalist and not entirely accurate, so I advise reading the actual article if it seems "too crazy." The overlap is mostly unavoidable because some fall into multiple categories. Curbing Freedom of Speech and the Press (or inciting violence to achieve the same effect):https://thinkprogress.org/trump-first-amendment-too-much-protection-37e72ee16ea2#.3jg023d6uhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-would-absolutelyopen-libel-laws-so-person-mecan-bring-lawsuitshttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendmenthttp://www.complex.com/life/2016/08/donald-trump-promises-ban-porn-if-elected-presidenthttp://dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/trump-if-im-president-youre-going-to-see-merry-christmas-in-department-stores-video/http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-on-blacklivesmatter-protester-at-rally-maybe-he-should-have-been-roughed-up/http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/23/donald-trump-on-protester-id-like-to-punch-him-in-the-face/http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/trump-putin-killing-reporters/http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/politics/paladinos-lynch-lorettalynch-tweet-introduces-him-to-america-20160706Undermining Freedom of Religion:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/donald-trump-vows-fight-christianity-freedom-relig/http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/11/trump-pronounces-america-judeo-christian-nation-thats-is.html Supporting Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Torture:https://thinkprogress.org/lethal-injection-is-too-comfortable-what-criminal-justice-could-look-like-under-president-trump-1e54b2bbb9de#.jz8b9klnahttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-responds-istanbul-waterboarding-torturehttp://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/trump-waterboarding-it-works-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-ithttp://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/ Supporting War Crimes and Inciting War In General: http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/trump-oreilly-declare-world-war-iii -Literally the same thing people accuse Hillary of wanting to do.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/donald-trump-bill-o-reilly-declare-world-war-scenario-article-1.2712682https://thinkprogress.org/trump-i-would-intentionally-kill-families-to-defeat-isis-b5484a36a7a2#.ssdrvlmm5http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-says-hed-force-us-military-commit-war/http://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-us-should-shoot-russian-planes-if-putin-calls-fail-454902http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/04/donald_trumps_first_tv_ad_of_the_2016_campaign.htmlActual Literal Treason:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clientshttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/top-trump-aide-led-the-torturers-lobby.htmlhttp://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trumps-top-campaign-adviser-made-millions-arms-dealers-warlords-dictators-andhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=0http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html (disclaimer: I think the embargo is stupid)Inciting Violence:http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/11/media-highlight-trumps-role-in-inspiring-violen/209176 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/5/donald-trump-gives-supporters-permissions-be-viole/ (what the f***???) http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#WNYdU4a_9iqE http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/13/cruz-trump-is-encouraging-people-to-violence/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913 http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.htmlttphttp://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/trump-gives-supporters-permission-to-be-violent-with-protesters-if-you-hurt-them-ill-defend-you-in-court/http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/donald-trump-basically-encouraging-violence-nowhttp://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters-offers-to-pay-legal-fees/http://gothamist.com/2016/03/13/donald_trump_encourages_violent_sup.phphttp://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violenthttp://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/escalating-aggression-marks-trump-s-rhetoric-642743363967http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/donald-trump-protesters-rally-violencehttp://gokicker.com/2016/03/14/oh-yes-donald-trump-definitely-encourages-violence-heres-evidence/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/donald-trump-campaign-violence-condoned-rally-incidents-reporter-assaultwww.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-supporters-hate-map-tracing-acts-harrassment-and-violence-rallies-coast-coasthttp://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/03/_13_times_trump_or_his_supporters_got_ugly_at_his_events/http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/massive_melee_erupts_outside_donald_trumps_first_campaign_rally_in_california/What to take away from this: He actually literally encouraged violence himself irrespective of what the DNC planted. Encouraging Voter Intimidation:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-poll-watching-plan-stirs-voter-intimidation-fears-n631261 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/donald-trump-voting-election-rigging.html?_r=0Bonus points: Explain to the class why this is any better than voter fraud, regardless of the likelihood that it simply doesn't happen in the way the Project Veritas video claims. It was hard finding some of these because I had to wade through mountains of articles on how awful Trump's supporters act. This isn't about them, although I did include articles on why they act the way they do. This is why Trump himself demonstrates a multitude of similarities to how the nazis acted. This is also a semi-comprehensive list on why Trump is an awful candidate outside of PC issues. These are positions he is simply wrong on regardless of your views on immigration, economic reform, etc etc. He could actually be right on those. These are things you cannot defend without willfully misinterpreting them or denying they ever happened. I got most of these from a megapost on reddit and tumblr, I just didn't link to it so specific articles inside of those posts couldn't be ignored as easily.I'm guessing I'm required to look through each one of those and attempt to debunk it? Putting the work on me a bit there, it'll take time. You might also not be linking it because people in the thread likely debunked a few of them The first couple about libel laws were in resp to things like baby gate that are just absolute falsehoods the media spun. They should get hammered on that. If the NYT hit pieces can hold up to scrutiny, they have nothing fear from a court case. If they're bullshit, well *sucks* Christmas sheet shouldn't be kept down, that's not free speech We've already established those protesters were hired HRC plants, so not sure if you want me to feel pity for them now Islam needs massive changes if it wants to be accepted here, it's corrosive to every American value other than the 1Ap2 that y'all cling to Geneva convention needs to be re-written, he's mentioned this So? HRC's top man (who unlike manafort hasn't been sacked) took a sheet ton of money from Russian stooges too Cuban case has been debunked, it was earlier in the thread, but Tom made a deal out of it Sure, he did this at the start, he's calmed sheet down. And you'll find in many of the cases people did it on their own even without his prodding It's not impossible, there's certain philly districts and places in NY and Cali that do need to be watched. It's not voter intimidation, you do realize in states that don't prohibit there are already people who ask for ids right? If you're legit you have nothing to fear I don't misrepresent them, because I agree with most of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 So before people start shouting "rigged" in this thread I want to bring this up just to make sure if that is a problem among you guys; http://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499450796/some-machines-are-flipping-votes-but-that-doesnt-mean-theyre-rigged To be honest, all I got from this is that "it's not rigged, that would be silly. Would I lie to you?" I'm not saying it is rigged but there's really no reason to think it couldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 It's honestly a bit sad that non of y'all are realizing the revolutionary nature of Trump's economic plan. It's honestly 3 step. 1) Offer firms a subsidy or tax break for their products, this will lower the marginal cost and thus right shift supply. Price will go down, quantity of product will go up 2) Have firms reinvest in capital (like machinery), this will increase demand for labor, which will increase 1) the wage rate 2) the number of workers (without messing with inflation since the wage increase will be proportional to the increase in corp profit) 3) White House has total control of the economy, they can manipulate the corp tax rate to increase or decrease anything really. Prices, Quantity, wage, worker It's communism wearing a capitalist fat suit. Now you may say congress won't pass it. That's where the ethics reform is a gun to their heads, the people are sold on reforming congress. Lobbying is crippled under Trump, and with Term limits, nobody has time to build up power. It's honestly stalinism, or what Stalin should have done if he wasn't distracted, but no doubt some of y'all will get all touchy feely about stalin, so let's just call it communism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I reiterate:It's really telling that you have to lie to yourself about what Trump stands for to even support him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourmaline Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I reiterate:At least Trump stands for something. What's more telling is that people who support Hillary don't even acknowledge that she's not even going to be the president if she wins. If Trump wins then an American is taking control, though the crimes of the other side are still inexcusable. You guys don't even know who you're voting for. Hillary's cheating to defeat Bernie Sanders was already confirmed so supporting this is just self-destruction. Voluntalily and consciously even worse so. Considering they use Goebbels-tier propaganda if Trump did something a fifth as bad as she did he would be in prison already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 At least Trump stands for something. What's more telling is that people who support Hillary don't even acknowledge that she's not even going to be the president if she wins. If Trump wins then an American is taking control, though the crimes of the other side are still inexcusable. You guys don't even know who you're voting for. Hillary's cheating to defeat Bernie Sanders was already confirmed so supporting this is just self-destruction. Voluntalily and consciously even worse so. Considering they use Goebbels-tier propaganda if Trump did something a fifth as bad as she did he would be in prison already. Sorry can I ask you to elaborate on 'she's not going to be president if she wins' part? Because to my knowledge Hillary is not the one whose had rumours about handing the reigns onto someone else whilst in office, so I'd enjoy reading about this. I can't tell if you mean Bill, Obama, some foriegn power or someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I reiterate:What's there to lie about. I'd like him to rein in the partisan media Honestly the only thing you're reiterating is a desire for confirmation that the squad will doubt silent rep I was unaware a post of 30 links full of overlap with little to no elaboration on each was worth 5reps? But clearly I was mistaken. Link the Reddit and tumblr posts please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 You mean the ones you glossed over and ignored the last time they were posted? Sure! https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/http://quantum-displacement.tumblr.com/post/146015554444/anti-trump-masterpost At least Trump stands for something. What's more telling is that people who support Hillary don't even acknowledge that she's not even going to be the president if she wins. If Trump wins then an American is taking control, though the crimes of the other side are still inexcusable. You guys don't even know who you're voting for. Hillary's cheating to defeat Bernie Sanders was already confirmed so supporting this is just self-destruction. Voluntalily and consciously even worse so. Considering they use Goebbels-tier propaganda if Trump did something a fifth as bad as she did he would be in prison already.That's full of s***. I know exactly who I'm voting for, what they've done, and what they'll probably do in the future. It's Mr. Pathological Denial over here that doesn't actually know who he's voting for. I hate what she did to Bernie, but to say she actually won't run the country is absolute horseshit considering how long she's wanted this position for. There's no way she'd squander that chance. EDIT: Could a mod merge my posts? I forgot that double posting didn't automerge anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Care to tell me how I'm in denial? I know exactly what I voted for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 You mean the ones you glossed over and ignored the last time they were posted? Sure! https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/http://quantum-displacement.tumblr.com/post/146015554444/anti-trump-masterpost That's full of s***. I know exactly who I'm voting for, what they've done, and what they'll probably do in the future. It's Mr. Pathological Denial over here that doesn't actually know who he's voting for. I hate what she did to Bernie, but to say she actually won't run the country is absolute horseshit considering how long she's wanted this position for. There's no way she'd squander that chance. EDIT: Could a mod merge my posts? I forgot that double posting didn't automerge anymore. Really bro? You're as bad as I am with temper. If Winter couldn't get away with personal attacks, you should know you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.