*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1500 on: October 20, 2016, 11:10:38 AM »
Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/

Quote
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.

It's a vague piece of wishy-washy environmentalism, nothing more.  It's certainly not her laying out her immigration policies.  I wish she had made more of this fact, rather than so awkwardly changing the subject to Wikileaks.  Someone who didn't know about this quote and didn't look it up after the fact would assume that she had been caught in a lie and was frantically trying to cover it up.

Considering that it was a paid, secret speech made to a bank, yeah, she did try to cover this up. There's no soft interpretation of "my dream is an open market and open borders" The whole speech is available if you want to read it, this wasn't a case of quote mining.

I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

Wrong!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1501 on: October 20, 2016, 11:14:36 AM »
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't know what a partial-birth abortion is. If you "pull out a baby" a couple of days before its due date, that's just called birth.

His answer on Aleppo sounded like an essay from a literature student who hadn't actually read the book.

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1502 on: October 20, 2016, 12:04:21 PM »
Considering that it was a paid, secret speech made to a bank, yeah, she did try to cover this up. There's no soft interpretation of "my dream is an open market and open borders" The whole speech is available if you want to read it, this wasn't a case of quote mining.

You're not even responding to what I said so much as you are ignoring it.  Yes, it's out of context, as made clear by the full sentence I posted.  This was not her secretly outlining her "real" immigration policies to her co-conspirators, it was her trying to be inspiring by painting a rosy picture of the future.  Under different circumstances, you'd be the first to attack it for its excessive idealism.  And no, the whole speech isn't available to be read.  That sentence is all that was leaked.

His answer on Aleppo sounded like an essay from a literature student who hadn't actually read the book.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/trumpbookreport

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1503 on: October 20, 2016, 12:30:59 PM »
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

Wrong!



Also:
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1504 on: October 20, 2016, 01:35:01 PM »
i was going to vote for hillary, but then trump pointed out that everything sucks and only he can save me from everything being terrible and of course i believe him for some reason.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1505 on: October 20, 2016, 04:16:08 PM »
i was going to vote for hillary
wtf you sick fuck
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1506 on: October 20, 2016, 05:59:03 PM »
i was going to vote for hillary shillery all-time mlb strikeout leader nolan ryan
wtf you sick fuck
fixed
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1507 on: October 20, 2016, 08:03:53 PM »
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4135
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1508 on: October 20, 2016, 08:10:22 PM »
No, you're the puppet!

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1509 on: October 20, 2016, 08:18:16 PM »
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up?  What was the claim Hillary made?
Also, he called her a nasty woman.  How is that NOT an attack of her character?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1510 on: October 20, 2016, 08:36:27 PM »
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up?  What was the claim Hillary made?
Also, he called her a nasty woman.  How is that NOT an attack of her character?

You obviously didn't watch the debate whatsoever, so why are you trying to even discuss it?

She made a ton of claims, that turned out to be false. Don't use politifact though or you will see just how biased and absurd it is. Do your own research if you want to see instead of relying on second hand accounts on internet forums.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7536
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1511 on: October 20, 2016, 09:20:04 PM »
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up?  What was the claim Hillary made?
Also, he called her a nasty woman.  How is that NOT an attack of her character?

You obviously didn't watch the debate whatsoever, so why are you trying to even discuss it?

She made a ton of claims, that turned out to be false. Don't use politifact though or you will see just how biased and absurd it is. Do your own research if you want to see instead of relying on second hand accounts on internet forums.
I did not see it.  Not all of it.
Hence why I asked.

And, pray tell, where should I get my facts from?  Because let's face it: I can type in 'hillary clinton is a nazi' and I'll get a hit saying it's true.  You can't, seriously, ask me to do my own research then tell me what sources I can't use.  Not without giving me a valid, credible source of unbiased information.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1512 on: October 20, 2016, 11:36:57 PM »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1513 on: October 21, 2016, 03:08:53 AM »
Not without giving me a valid, credible source of unbiased information.

You'll get nowhere asking someone to gift you a solid gold unicorn, Dave.

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1514 on: October 21, 2016, 03:25:21 AM »
I do think that Politifact has a slight issue with bias in that they tend to be a little harder on Republicans as far as their final verdict goes - they're more likely to give them a "False" where a Democrat in a very similar situation would only get a "Mostly False," for example.  But the good news is that they don't limit themselves to simply summarizing the issue with a few words; they go into detail and explain their reasoning, the research they did, what the record says, etc.  The same goes for most mainstreaming fact-checking websites.  If you have a problem with their determinations, then be specific and talk about where they went wrong.  You can't just dismiss everything they say by crying "bias!"

To answer Dave's question about Trump's objections, here is the transcript of the debate.  Trump interrupted Clinton to dispute what she was saying four times:

Quote
Clinton: I find it ironic that he is raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons.

Trump: Wrong.

Clinton: He has advocated more countries getting them. Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He’s said if we have them, why don't we use them which I think is terrifying. But here's the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There is about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that is why ten people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and in an unprecedented way said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Trump: I have 200 generals and admirals, 21 endorsing me. 21 congressional medal of honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the world. We're defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century. All I said is we have to renegotiate these agreements. Because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford. She took that as saying nuclear weapons.

This isn't true.  He specifically talked about nuclear armament for Japan and South Korea here and here.

Quote
Clinton: At the last debate, we heard Donald talking about what he did to women, and after that a number of women have come forward saying that's exactly what he did to them. Now, what was his response? Well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women because they were not attractive enough for –

Trump: I did not say that.

Clinton: -- them to be assaulted.

Trump: I did not say that.

Clinton: In fact, he went on to say --

Wallace: Her two minutes. Sire, her two minutes.

Trump: I did not say that.

Wallace: Her two minutes.

Clinton: He went on to say “look at her, I don’t think so.” About another woman, he said “that wouldn't be my first choice.” He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her disgusting, as he has called a number of women during this campaign. Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don't think there is a woman anywhere that doesn't know what that feels like.

We have footage of Trump saying these things:





The second one, I'll grant, could be interpreted a bit more generously to mean simply looking at her allegations and dismissing them as implausible, although I'm not inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, given his history.  But the first video leaves no doubt as to what he meant.

Quote
Clinton: Well, every time Donald is pushed on something, which is obviously uncomfortable like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility and it's not just about women. He never apologizes or says he's sorry for anything, so we know what he has said and what he's done to women. But he also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television.

Trump: Wrong.

Again, we have footage:



Quote
Clinton: Well, you know, once again Donald is implying that he didn't support the invasion of Iraq. I said it was a mistake. I said that years ago. He has consistently denied what is --

Trump: Wrong.

Clinton: -- is a very clear fact that before the invasion

Trump: Wrong.

Clinton: -- he supported it. I just want everybody to go google it. “Google Donald Trump Iraq” and you'll see the dozens of sources which verify that he was for the invasion of Iraq.

Trump: Wrong.

The old "I never supported the Iraq War!" line.  It's strange how obstinate Trump is being on this.  It should only ever have been a very minor point, as he could have easily defended himself by pointing out that he was a civilian then, he only knew what the government was saying, and that Hillary, being a senator at the time, was in a far better position to investigate what was going on and see if the war really needed to happen, as well as had a greater responsibility to do so.  He seems to truly believe that he was against it the whole time.  However, the record shows that he expressed a number of different views at the time, far from being the ardent skeptic he's now claiming to have been.  Which, again, wouldn't have been a problem, but then he had to go and make it a problem by saying all these silly, easily-disproved things.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2016, 02:44:05 PM by George »

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4135
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1515 on: October 21, 2016, 12:18:19 PM »
Ah, I'm glad George came in with the videos. I would have referenced them but been to lazy to do it myself.

Anyway, almost any fact checking done (not by alt-right pepes) shows that Hillary was correct most of the time while Trump was lying most of the time. It's always been this way and it's not that hard to believe. He's never been in politics, he has no idea what he's saying.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1516 on: October 21, 2016, 06:01:32 PM »
ok but real talk guys



amirite??? :D
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1517 on: October 21, 2016, 06:04:59 PM »
It wouldn't matter. Hillary going to "prison" would actually be some sort of pseudo-house-arrest. It's not like they'd put her in a concrete cell like one of the common peasants.

There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1518 on: October 21, 2016, 06:11:39 PM »
There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.

Yeah, the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8509
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1519 on: October 21, 2016, 07:23:48 PM »
There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.

Yeah, the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.

Actually, I was referring to divine retribution.