Meh. Decent, not decent. I don't even have to make that argument.
Hillary is vastly more intelligent and able to grasp complex ideas, with a good deal of experience with foreign policy. Trump is a doofus.
That said:
You sidestepped my point about trump being a demogogue.
Do you think that is acceptable in a president?
Almost all politicians are demagogues.
To some degree. Trump takes it farther, and crosses the line into making what should be unacceptable, acceptable.
or alternately:
Should we elect the biggest demagogue out of all the politicians to be president? Is this a qualification in your mind, or a bad thing?
Definitely not a qualification. I still see him as a better alternative than Hillary though. I prefer leaders to be more transparent and I believe he is more transparent than Hillary.
non-stop lying, demagoguing, conning, suckering, hiding his medical, tax records, Trump Foundation fraud, Trump U fraud, and constantly changing positions (eg, immigration)
I'm sorry. I thought school was back in session?!
I don't think any of these pieces of are acceptable.
But, w/ all due respect, I didn't sidestep it so much as I ignored it for redundancy's sake, since iirc we've had this discussion before & couldn't agree on the demagoguery stuff (can't recall the thread but it probably wasn't more than 4,5 months ago). I think both parties & candidates are demagogues. Obviously, you disagree.
There is a village somewhere that may or may not miss you.
Most Demons are racist. Definitely 100% of the top brass. DNC colleagues shouldn't be sending racial manipulation instructions to each other.
Jane, you ignorant . My personality profile is not at issue here, any more than is your inability to achieve orgasm. The issue is Taiwan. How can we expect to have the confidence of any free nation when we stab one of our most faithful allies in the back. I suppose you'd like to conduct our foreign policy the way you conduct your private life, hopping from bed to bed with anyone that can do you some good. Then what do you have? An old, dried-out scuzz that no decent man would be seen with. Is that what you want for America? It's too late for you, Jane, but our country still has some dignity left, you hosebag!
I'm pretty sure you are wasting the references on this crowd, TLong. They aren't gonna get it.
yeah, haven't thought about those skits in ages.
Not at all what I am saying. I am saying there are varying degrees of demagogue. Some are worse than others.
So I can assume that you think it is bad, which I agree with.
Now, we just need to get at a degree. Which is worse?
That never stopped me.
Just clear the throat, readjust the tie, and call it a tough crowd.
And really, if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at?
Avante.
SNL classics? Nah. I'm pretty old.
Ahhh.
We are talking about the chronological aspect of references.
I was merely referring to making juvenile references or references that only the author can piece together. I have turned this into an art form that only I can appreciate.
Yeah, you are a cranky old bas ...
Don't hold back...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honestyIntellectual dishonesty
Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one's hypothesis, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. Broadly speaking, any of the following behaviors would fall under intellectual dishonesty.
Arguing for a viewpoint you yourself disbelieve.
Exception: The role of devil's advocate, when consciously acted out, is not intellectually dishonest. A good devil's advocate will express the opposition's strongest arguments, and draw attention to the weaknesses of the arguments of co-thinkers. This is a valuable tool for intellectual rigour and honesty, and also helps to ward off the dangers of echo chambers and the resulting groupthink.
Deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position. (willful ignorance)
Knowingly using a logical fallacy.
Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally).[1]
You have mastered the art of expressing the simple thought
It's also called trolling.
It's a point we couldn't agree on in the thread I mentioned. How do you quantify it? The fact that it's even up for debate makes an effort to do so pretty hard. They're both turds of pretty equal proportions IMO in terms of demagoguery.
But beyond that, the demagoguery standard that you're putting forth is just that: a single, limited standard. I think the more you add on to it, the more even it becomes in terms which one is less ty. Like, for instance integrity. They both suck at that. Months back, I thought Hillary had Trump on that. When the whole DNC rigging thing got exposed, I basically threw my hands up.
The system just doesn't work when there's no honesty/transparency & name-calling that clouds virtually any semblance of an exchange of ideas. Its been going on for a while now in Washington but it has truly tipped the scales at this point. It's an utter embarrassment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
