-
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
I'm not aware of any media outlet claiming he called all veterans suffering PTSD weak (if they did, that would absolutely be dishonest).
I certainly didn't. Do you want to reframe your counter argument to actually reflect what I stated earlier? -
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
I'm not aware of any media outlet claiming he called all veterans suffering PTSD weak (if they did, that would absolutely be dishonest).
I certainly didn't. Do you want to reframe your counter argument to actually reflect what I stated earlier?FFS phoentia a quick google search throws up the following headlines:
- Donald Trump appears to suggest that veterans suffering from PTSD are not 'strong'
- Trump on PTSD: Some veterans aren’t strong enough to ‘handle it’
- Trump told a room full of veterans that PTSD only affects those who aren't 'strong.'
- Donald Trump says some veterans are not 'strong enough' to handle the mental health damage from war
- Trump Criticizes Veterans Suffering PTSD
- Trump angers with suggestion that vets with PTSD are weak
You seriously don't think any of those are dishonest?
Here's a comment from a Vet on what he said:
But Trump’s supporters who have served quickly said his remarks were being exaggerated for effect in the media. Former Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux, a combat veteran who served in Force Reconnaissance units and asked Trump the question, defended him in a statement released to news organizations. “I think it’s sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments to me in order to pursue a political agenda,” said Robichaux, who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. “I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have, and I believe he is committed to helping them.”
-
@phoenetia surely you can do better than try and hide behind the fact news outlets didn't claim he said "all vets" . Here's the New York daily news https://www.google.co.nz/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-ptsd-aren-strong-article-1.2815752%3F0p19G=e?client=safari
-
@phoenetia
He didnt call anyone weak. That is the fact. care to counter that? That should have been your first step before saying it was not dishonest.
As soon as you point out where he called anyone weak..... then you have a starting point, until then you talking shite.
But to help you I will give you a clue. Your logic is flawed in your first post and indeed what you said was logical.. actually was not.He said
"and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can’t handle it. "Factual flaw 1 .. not being strong does not make you weak, it is not binary.
Factual flaw 2 ... given his statement it is also a true statement that it is possible to be strong and still not handle it. .. the clue is the 'and'. From a logical perspective he may have said "you’re tall and you can handle it but a lot of people can’t handle it' . Now at this point you need to remember that you 'bought 'logic' into the equation, even if incredibly poorly... there is nothing logical about your assumption.. and your willingness to lap up everything the media throws at you that suits your dislike of Trump, at least try to show some independent thinking. And don't throw around the phrase 'logically' you clearly don't understand it. -
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
I'm not aware of any media outlet claiming he called all veterans suffering PTSD weak (if they did, that would absolutely be dishonest).
I certainly didn't. Do you want to reframe your counter argument to actually reflect what I stated earlier?So you refuted my claim it was dishonest form the media based on nothing ?
Why didnt you just ask for a link? Or do a google search? Was it because your knee jerk Hilary defence kicked in first?
-
People in Hillarys campaign and surrogates did spread the rumour. This wasn't a controversial point back in 2008. It has become one now that she is running again.
Politifact even admits staffers and surrogates did spread the rumour in other older 'fact checks' but point out that they did not come from the official campaign (duh)As for the recent Blumenthal part of this story, the claim is that he convinced a media organisation to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate Obama's past.. including his 'real' birth certificate.
Blumenthal agrees he encouraged them to dig dirt on Obama in Kenya.. but not about the 'real' birth certificate.
It's Blumenthals word vs McClatchy. Politifact has decided Blumenthal's word is the truth. Blumenthal is of course a proven liar (including under oath)When HC took over the State Department she wanted to hire Blumenthal. Obama forbid her from hiring Blumenthal because of the shitty campaign he ran against Obama
-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
I'm not aware of any media outlet claiming he called all veterans suffering PTSD weak (if they did, that would absolutely be dishonest).
I certainly didn't. Do you want to reframe your counter argument to actually reflect what I stated earlier?FFS phoentia a quick google search throws up the following headlines:
- Donald Trump appears to suggest that veterans suffering from PTSD are not 'strong'
- Trump on PTSD: Some veterans aren’t strong enough to ‘handle it’
- Trump told a room full of veterans that PTSD only affects those who aren't 'strong.'
- Donald Trump says some veterans are not 'strong enough' to handle the mental health damage from war
- Trump Criticizes Veterans Suffering PTSD
- Trump angers with suggestion that vets with PTSD are weak
You seriously don't think any of those are dishonest?
Here's a comment from a Vet on what he said:
But Trump’s supporters who have served quickly said his remarks were being exaggerated for effect in the media. Former Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux, a combat veteran who served in Force Reconnaissance units and asked Trump the question, defended him in a statement released to news organizations. “I think it’s sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments to me in order to pursue a political agenda,” said Robichaux, who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. “I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have, and I believe he is committed to helping them.”
If the outlet is claiming its suggested, implied or inferred, I see that as manipulative. It's not entirely dishonest because that position can be logically derived from his statements.
And as I stated earlier, if the outlet is claiming he said it, that is dishonest because he didnt say that. There's a nuanced distinction here.
Some of those headlines above fall into the former, some into the latter.
I really think you guys are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing here. -
It's already up on Snopes , http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-didnt-say-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia
He didnt call anyone weak. That is the fact. care to counter that? That should have been your first step before saying it was not dishonest.
As soon as you point out where he called anyone weak..... then you have a starting point, until then you talking shite.
But to help you I will give you a clue. Your logic is flawed in your first post and indeed what you said was logical.. actually was not.He said
"and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can’t handle it. "Factual flaw 1 .. not being strong does not make you weak, it is not binary.
Factual flaw 2 ... given his statement it is also a true statement that it is possible to be strong and still not handle it. .. the clue is the 'and'. From a logical perspective he may have said "you’re tall and you can handle it but a lot of people can’t handle it' . Now at this point you need to remember that you 'bought 'logic' into the equation, even if incredibly poorly... there is nothing logical about your assumption.. and your willingness to lap up everything the media throws at you that suits your dislike of Trump, at least try to show some independent thinking. And don't throw around the phrase 'logically' you clearly don't understand it.Good grief. Didnt I already say he didn't explicitly call anyone weak? How many more times do you need me to say it?
-
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
I'm not aware of any media outlet claiming he called all veterans suffering PTSD weak (if they did, that would absolutely be dishonest).
I certainly didn't. Do you want to reframe your counter argument to actually reflect what I stated earlier?FFS phoentia a quick google search throws up the following headlines:
- Donald Trump appears to suggest that veterans suffering from PTSD are not 'strong'
- Trump on PTSD: Some veterans aren’t strong enough to ‘handle it’
- Trump told a room full of veterans that PTSD only affects those who aren't 'strong.'
- Donald Trump says some veterans are not 'strong enough' to handle the mental health damage from war
- Trump Criticizes Veterans Suffering PTSD
- Trump angers with suggestion that vets with PTSD are weak
You seriously don't think any of those are dishonest?
Here's a comment from a Vet on what he said:
But Trump’s supporters who have served quickly said his remarks were being exaggerated for effect in the media. Former Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux, a combat veteran who served in Force Reconnaissance units and asked Trump the question, defended him in a statement released to news organizations. “I think it’s sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments to me in order to pursue a political agenda,” said Robichaux, who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. “I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have, and I believe he is committed to helping them.”
If the outlet is claiming its suggested, implied or inferred, I see that as manipulative. It's not entirely dishonest because that position can be logically derived from his statements.
And as I stated earlier, if the outlet is claiming he said it, that is dishonest because he didnt say that. There's a nuanced distinction here.
Some of those headlines above fall into the former, some into the latter.
I really think you guys are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing here.So you're saying some are manipulating what he said and others are straight out dishonest. (I think they are all dishonest).
Knickers in a twist? No, just pointing out the increasingly dishonest media as a key reason someone like Trump has done as well as he has. People are getting fed up with it, to the point that a candidate like Trump is actually appealing.
-
@phoenetia
Well maybe you should think before knee jerking then?
Media outlets said he called them weak.. FACT
He didnt .. FACT
Therefore they were dishonest.Except you then said they were not dishonest. If you claim someone said something.. that they did not.. newsflash phoenetia .. that is dishonest.. no matter how much you love Clinton.
-
If the outlet is claiming its suggested, implied or inferred, I see that as manipulative. It's not entirely dishonest because that position can be logically derived from his statements.
I really think you guys are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing here.
No... you are just showing you dont understand how logic works... stop using words you don't understand.
Knickers in a twist? No.. just bemused as to why you decided to make a fool of yourself over this.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Oh fuck off! You cannot be serious??? .It was blatantly dishonest, take your Hilary fan boy hat off for at least 1 second.
Some people see the world differently from you mate. That doesnt mean you need to jump straight to insults. How about challenging my argument instead?
What's to challenge? It was blatently dishonest reporting. He's (clearly) talking about Vets that can no longer handle everyday situations because of the horrors they have seen at war. That's pretty fucking far from him calling them all "weak".
I'm not aware of any media outlet claiming he called all veterans suffering PTSD weak (if they did, that would absolutely be dishonest).
I certainly didn't. Do you want to reframe your counter argument to actually reflect what I stated earlier?FFS phoentia a quick google search throws up the following headlines:
- Donald Trump appears to suggest that veterans suffering from PTSD are not 'strong'
- Trump on PTSD: Some veterans aren’t strong enough to ‘handle it’
- Trump told a room full of veterans that PTSD only affects those who aren't 'strong.'
- Donald Trump says some veterans are not 'strong enough' to handle the mental health damage from war
- Trump Criticizes Veterans Suffering PTSD
- Trump angers with suggestion that vets with PTSD are weak
You seriously don't think any of those are dishonest?
Here's a comment from a Vet on what he said:
But Trump’s supporters who have served quickly said his remarks were being exaggerated for effect in the media. Former Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux, a combat veteran who served in Force Reconnaissance units and asked Trump the question, defended him in a statement released to news organizations. “I think it’s sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments to me in order to pursue a political agenda,” said Robichaux, who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. “I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have, and I believe he is committed to helping them.”
If the outlet is claiming its suggested, implied or inferred, I see that as manipulative. It's not entirely dishonest because that position can be logically derived from his statements.
And as I stated earlier, if the outlet is claiming he said it, that is dishonest because he didnt say that. There's a nuanced distinction here.
Some of those headlines above fall into the former, some into the latter.
I really think you guys are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing here.So you're saying some are manipulating what he said and others are straight out dishonest. (I think they are all dishonest).
Knickers in a twist? No, just pointing out the increasingly dishonest media as a key reason someone like Trump has done as well as he has. People are getting fed up with it, to the point that a candidate like Trump is actually appealing.
In this case, yeah. That being said, given his monstrous gaffes over the last years, they might have been better placed to disregard this one. Theres far more higher quality low hanging fruit available.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@phoenetia
Well maybe you should think before knee jerking then?
Media outlets said he called them weak.. FACT
He didnt .. FACT
Therefore they were dishonest.Except you then said they were not dishonest. If you claim someone said something.. that they did not.. newsflash phoenetia .. that is dishonest.. no matter how much you love Clinton.
Give it a rest bro. I've already agreed with you on this point - wtfs wrong with you?
FWIW - I'm not a Clinton supporter. I just cant stand Trump. You are being dishonest. -
@Duluth said in US Election Thread 2016:
People in Hillarys campaign and surrogates did spread the rumour. This wasn't a controversial point back in 2008. It has become one now that she is running again.
Politifact even admits staffers and surrogates did spread the rumour in other older 'fact checks' but point out that they did not come from the official campaign (duh)As for the recent Blumenthal part of this story, the claim is that he convinced a media organisation to send a reporter to Kenya to investigate Obama's past.. including his 'real' birth certificate.
Blumenthal agrees he encouraged them to dig dirt on Obama in Kenya.. but not about the 'real' birth certificate.
It's Blumenthals word vs McClatchy. Politifact has decided Blumenthal's word is the truth. Blumenthal is of course a proven liar (including under oath)When HC took over the State Department she wanted to hire Blumenthal. Obama forbid her from hiring Blumenthal because of the shitty campaign he ran against Obama
Thanks for the civil response mate. Clearly there is more to the birtherism story than I was aware, I'll do some more reading.
-
So who's excited about the VP debate?
No one?
It looks like the dullest VP debate in many elections but it might actually be consequential.
Looking at the two main candidates the chances of death, incapacitation, impeachment, incarceration and in Trumps case maybe even quitting.. it seems more likely than usual that one of these men will be President within 4 years
-
@Duluth said in US Election Thread 2016:
So who's excited about the VP debate?
No one?
It looks like the dullest VP debate in many elections but it might actually be consequential.
Looking at the two main candidates the chances of death, incapacitation, impeachment, incarceration and in Trumps case maybe even quitting.. it seems more likely than usual that one of these men will be President within 4 years
I'm listening to it atm. Kaine has a really annoying demeanour and I don't see him convincing undecideds to vote Clinton.
I read an article earlier claiming that the GOP declared a Pence victory hours before the debate kicked off - I think they were onto something. -
Well for me, Pence won the first half, the finish clearly belonged to Kaine though.
Kaine seemed to have memorised every single one of Trumps gaffes and threw that Pence thick and fast however he constantly interrupted Pence which grated.
Pence withstood for at least the first half but seemed rattled by the end of it.
All that said, Kaine came across as a bit of a dh. He argued some good points but at times he just came across as unlikeable.
Conversely, despite not liking alot of what Pence said, I found him to be more likeable than Kaine however he really struggled to defend many of Trumps past indiscretions.
I'd give this one to Pence. Not sure if he did enough to convince undecideds to vote Trump though.
US Politics