32
   

Will Donald Trump Be Afraid To Debate Hillary Clinton?

 
 
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 08:54 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I'll readiy concede that Trump is a bit of a bombast and hip-shooter, who flouts the conventional standards of (ahem !) serious political candidates

You're really extending yourself far out on a meta-paritsan limb there, george. The intellectual bravery of the sentence nearly collapses my lungs and I am striving for breath.

Quote:
It is interesting to me, in terms of our different outlooks and backgrounds, that you are the one who appear to be more inclined to accept arguments based on the supposed authority of the authors. Ironic, isn't it?

The importance of those three editorials (and the many other examples I
alluded to) seems to have eluded you. Or more accurately, you have eluded it.

The level of rejection of the Trump candidacy by smart and politically knowledgeable people and institutions on the right has no precedent in your lifetime and surely longer. Am I and others on the left deeply afraid of a Trump presidency? Yes. As we were imagining Sarah Palin sitting there. But we are far from alone.

I'm not going to bother pointing out again how you misapprehend and misuse the argument from authority fallacy when convenient. It is tiresome.

revelette2
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:11 am
@georgeob1,
You continue to live in your own world, you have done in the past and have been proven wrong when you thought for sure Obama would lose in 2012. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. The way it is has been going is Trump catches up for just a bit maybe beating her and then Clinton comes back and beats him time and time again. The demographics are against him as well through his own fault and like you he just doubles down on his negatives like he did with his name calling of Miss Universe. You may think it doesn't matter to call women names, but women vote and they do not like for their daughters too see hear a major candidate belittling women by calling them fat names which is problem for young girls obsessing on their looks and weight because of society it's superficial obsession with appearances. He brought that whole thing on himself because of his past remarks and his doubling down on it rather than apologizing for his remarks which had a lasting damaging effect on the woman in question. He did the same with gold star family. He does the same with minorities and immigrants (legal ones too as he makes no distinction and even if he did it wouldn't erase it.) All of these people vote and Hillary is making sure it stays a topic and she will continue to do so and I am glad. I do not want a guy in Whitehouse who thinks and acts the way Donald Trump does. So I say, keep going girl, I am with you all the way.

That is just one side of it, the other his sheer ignorance of which he shows when it comes to the most aspects of what a guy running for President should know. Not only ignorance but dangerous ignorance and careless attitudes of things which could have horrible disastrous consequences. Putting it all together and logically speaking there is no way he should be able to become President of the United States regardless of one might feel about Hillary of which personally I am coming to like more rather than less.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:26 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

[The importance of those three editorials (and the many other examples I
alluded to) seems to have eluded you. Or more accurately, you have eluded it.

The level of rejection of the Trump candidacy by smart and politically knowledgeable people and institutions on the right has no precedent in your lifetime and surely longer. Am I and others on the left deeply afraid of a Trump presidency? Yes. As we were imagining Sarah Palin sitting there. But we are far from alone.

I'm not going to bother pointing out again how you misapprehend and misuse the argument from authority fallacy when convenient. It is tiresome.


The contradictions implicit in these juxtaposed thoughts are quite breathtaking !

I detect the symptoms of fear and unease of many here regarding the Trump insurgency. Blatham sees a conspiracy of the ignorant, unlettered masses led by an evil right wing cult, while revelette simply doubles down on insisting that I am (1) always wrong and (2) always double down. You both appear to have lost any lighhearted sense of irony and humor.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:34 am
@georgeob1,
What I see is a very ignorant man in Donald Trump. I'm not alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-shocking-ignorance-laid-bare/2016/03/24/b66d2b6c-f1f7-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html?utm_term=.4f2d2f91498b

Trump has big hands and a big ego, and noting in between.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:42 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The contradictions implicit in these juxtaposed thoughts are quite breathtaking !

Point them out.
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:45 am
@blatham,
He won't be able to, he is just good at making sentences.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 10:35 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
The contradictions implicit in these juxtaposed thoughts are quite breathtaking !

Point them out.


I think they are just as obvious as is the use you made of an argument from authority in your post. I will gladly point out the contradictions if you will explain just what you mean by the fallacy associasted with an argument from authority.
blatham
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 11:29 am
@georgeob1,
(For the last time) I did not make a fallacious argument from authority. I made a logically appropriate argument from authority.

"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert."

We can - you do - give credence to a claim when it arises from a person or persons which are, through experience and training, knowledgeable in some sphere. You will take advice on treatment for some physical condition from your doctor where you would not if given by your plumber. Granting such credence is logically appropriate and not fallacious.

One, of course, does not have to (and would be stupid to) grant absolute authority in any case. Other authoritative opinions will need to be assayed. It's a matter of probabilities of getting it right through who you attend to.

Equally, one would be stupid to ignore opinions or claims made by those who are knowledgeable and trained in the sphere or subject being studied/addressed while attending to others not so trained. This would be an instance of authoritative fallacy.
Real Music
 
  1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 11:34 am
The comedy television show (South Park) had some fun with the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump debate. I think everyone will get a good laugh of this short clip. Here's Clinton vs Trump.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 11:50 am
@blatham,
Quote:
We all naturally strive to reduce uncomfortable thoughts and emotions that sit poorly with our dearly held beliefs. Such is the way when we deny evidence of an unfaithful partner or of the abysmal performance of a beloved sporting team. Our beliefs become impervious to the facts in a process psychologists call cognitive immunization.
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 11:53 am
@georgeob1,
It probably seems as if I have no respect for you at all when actually that is not true. I just think you are stuck in a hard place like probably a lot of old time conservative republicans have been since the beginning of the tea party on up to Donald Trump which seems like the climax (sorry for the word) of the tea party. I don't agree with old time republicans but at least I understood them. What you don't seem to get (or want to face or admit) is right now with Trump the choice seems to go beyond regular disagreements between a conservative government and judges and a liberal government and judges. Trump is in a class by himself. But enough on that, I don't expect you to agree or even credence to what say.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 11:55 am
@blatham,
Thank you for the definition. My only observation was that you were making a starkly obvious argument from authority, something which I view as obviously risky, except in cases with known and verifiable dynamics and known boundary conditions, such as engineering and most ( not all ) subdomains in science. While I made no specific assertion of a fallacy, I clearly had questions related to the uncertainty of future events and the complexity of political affairs in mind, together with the numerous examples provided by history of suprises in such processes, and cases when the self-appointed experts (authorities) of the day were all wrong.

Moreover there are a number of "authorities" one could cite providing equally dire forecasts for the results of a Clinton win. How should one weigh them in the balance?

In short I found your argument from authority to be very ( ludicrously) far short of convincing. I don't think the fallacious/ non fallacious divide here is nearly as clear as you suppose, though I recognize that you regard the political commentators you frequent as infallable. I don't.
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 11:58 am
Trump wanted less-attractive women fired, employees say

Quote:
LOS ANGELES — Donald Trump wanted only the pretty ones, his employees said.

After the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes opened for play in 2005, its world-famous owner didn't stop by more than a few times a year to visit the course hugging the coast of the Pacific.

When Trump did visit, the club's managers went on alert. They scheduled the young, thin, pretty women on staff to work the clubhouse restaurant — because when Trump saw less-attractive women working at his club, according to court records, he wanted them fired.

"I had witnessed Donald Trump tell managers many times while he was visiting the club that restaurant hostesses were 'not pretty enough' and that they should be fired and replaced with more attractive women," Hayley Strozier, who was director of catering at the club until 2008, said in a sworn declaration.

Initially, Trump gave this command "almost every time" he visited, Strozier said. Managers eventually changed employee schedules "so that the most attractive women were scheduled to work when Mr. Trump was scheduled to be at the club," she said.

A similar story is told by former Trump employees in court documents filed in 2012 in a broad labor relations lawsuit brought against one of Trump's development companies in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The employees' declarations in support of the lawsuit, which have not been reported in detail until now, show the extent to which they believed Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee, pressured subordinates at one of his businesses to create and enforce a culture of beauty, where female employees' appearances were prized over their skills.

A Trump Organization attorney, in a statement to the Los Angeles Times, called the allegations "meritless."

In a 2009 court filing, the company said that any "allegedly wrongful or discriminatory acts" by its employees, if any occurred, would be in violation of company policy and were not authorized.

Employees said in their declarations that the apparent preference for attractive women came from the top.

"Donald Trump always wanted good looking women working at the club," said Sue Kwiatkowski, a restaurant manager at the club until 2009, in a declaration. "I know this because one time he took me aside and said, 'I want you to get some good looking hostesses here. People like to see good looking people when they come in.' "

As a result, Kwiatkowski said, "I and the other managers always tried to have our most attractive hostesses working when Mr. Trump was in town and going to be on the premises."

Trump has struggled to win female voters' support as he seeks the nation's highest office. In the past, he has insulted women's appearances, sometimes calling them "pigs" or "dogs."

Trump's record with women got renewed attention after this week's presidential debate, when Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told the story of a former beauty pageant winner who said Trump called her "Miss Piggy" when she gained weight.

Trump has previously defended himself by saying he has "great respect for women" and "will do far more for women " than Clinton. He has also said that "all are impressed with how nicely I have treated women."

As part of the lawsuit over a lack of meal and rest breaks at Trump's golf club about 30 miles south of downtown Los Angeles — his largest real estate holding in Southern California — several employees said managers staffed Trump's clubhouse restaurant with attractive young women rather than more experienced employees in order to please Trump.

The bulk of the lawsuit was settled in 2013, when golf course management, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $475,000 to employees who had complained about break policies. An employee's claim that she was fired after complaining about the company's treatment of women was settled separately; its terms remain confidential.

A public relations company working for the Trump campaign referred questions about the lawsuit to one of the attorneys who represented the Trump National Golf Club in the case.

"We do not engage in discrimination of any kind and have always complied with all wage laws, including by providing our employees with meal and rest breaks," said the attorney, Jill Martin, assistant general counsel for the Trump Organization.

The former employees' statements primarily describe the club's work culture from the mid- to late 2000s. The Times spoke at length to one of the ex-employees, who described in detail the allegations about workplace culture. The person declined to be quoted by name, citing a fear of being sued.

In their sworn declarations, some employees described how Trump, during his stays in Southern California, made inappropriate and patronizing statements to the women working for him.

On one visit, Trump saw "a young, attractive hostess working named Nicole ... and directed that she be brought to a place where he was meeting with a group of men," former Trump restaurant manager Charles West said in his declaration.

"After this woman had been presented to him, Mr. Trump said to his guests something like, 'See, you don't have to go to Hollywood to find beautiful women,'" West said. "He also turned to Nicole and asked her, 'Do you like Jewish men?'"

One of the few older people on the wait staff who served Trump, Maral Bolsajian, said she was "uncomfortable" when he visited, calling his behavior toward her "inappropriate."

"Although I am a grown woman in my 40s, Mr. Trump regularly greeted me with expressions like 'how's my favorite girl?'" Bolsajian said in a declaration. "Later, after he learned (by asking me) that I was married — and happily so — he regularly asked, 'are you still happily married?' whenever he saw me."

Trump also asked her to pose for photos with him, said Bolsajian, who added that she felt she "had little recourse given that Donald Trump is not only the head of the company but also one of the most powerful, well-known people in the United States."

Bolsajian said, "In short, I consistently found Mr. Trump to be overly familiar and unprofessional."

The lawsuit focused on the course's high-pressure work culture. Employees said they were not allowed to take the breaks required under California law.

The statements about Trump's preference for young, attractive employees were filed in support of a separate claim for retaliation, lodged after former restaurant host Lucy Messerschmidt, then 45, contended that she had been fired for complaining about age discrimination.

Jeffrey W. Cowan, a Santa Monica attorney who represented the employees in the lawsuit, said the case targeted Trump's development company, VH Property Corp., but "the evidence certainly suggested" that the club's work culture flowed from Trump.

Although Trump was mostly absent from the course he purchased in 2002, workers said his company maintained a rigorous work environment that often left workers exhausted.

Employees said managers urged them to hurry through brief meal breaks, sometimes even expressing impatience with bathroom breaks.

"My manager insisted that because this was Trump's golf course, it had to be top-notch," one employee said in a declaration. "He was concerned that if Trump observed employees eating or resting, Trump would not be pleased."

Another employee said his manager "seemed obsessed with the fact that this was Donald Trump's golf course," believing that "Mr. Trump wouldn't like it if he saw employees sitting around because he would think the golf course was inefficient and overstaffed." A valet described a stretch where "someone got fired every week."

One busboy said in a declaration that he took up smoking so that he would have an excuse for going outside for a break.

In response, Trump's company filed declarations from more than a dozen other employees who said they regularly were offered lunch breaks of at least 30 minutes for every five-hour shift, and were counseled by managers if they didn't take them.

Lili Amini, general manager, said in a declaration that the company implemented a firm policy about such breaks in 2009.

Employees said managers started instituting breaks after the class-action lawsuit was filed.

Female employees said they faced additional pressures.

Strozier, the former catering director, said Vincent Stellio — a former Trump bodyguard who had risen to become a Trump Organization vice president — approached her in 2003 about an employee that Strozier thought was talented.

Stellio wanted the employee fired because she was overweight, Strozier said in her legal filing.

"Mr. Stellio told me to do this because 'Mr. Trump doesn't like fat people' and that he would not like seeing (the employee) when he was on the premises," wrote Strozier, who said she refused the request. (Stellio died in 2010.)

A year later, Mike van der Goes — a golf pro who had been promoted to be Trump National's general manager — made a similar request to fire the same overweight employee, Strozier said.

"Mr. van der Goes told me that he wanted me to do this because of (the employee's) appearance and the fact that Mr. Trump didn't like people that looked like her," Strozier wrote.

When Strozier protested, Van der Goes returned a week later "and announced he had a plan of hiding (the employee) whenever Mr. Trump was on the premises," Strozier wrote.

West, who worked as a restaurant manager at the club until 2008, wrote that Van der Goes ordered him "to hire young, attractive women to be hostesses." West also said Van der Goes insisted that he "would need to meet all such job applicants first to determine if they were sufficiently pretty."

Van der Goes, who worked at the club until 2008, did not respond to requests for comment, though he defended Trump in a February interview with the Santa Clarita Gazette.

"He's not a racist. He's not a bigot," said Van der Goes, who called Trump "an astute businessman and a marketing genius."

Employees said several women quit or were fired because they were perceived as unattractive.

A server, John Marlo, recalled seeing a co-worker crying in 2007. The woman had wanted to be promoted to server.

"She told me that she was upset because a manager had told her that she couldn't be a server because of she had acne on her face," Marlo said in a declaration. "According to her, she was qualified for the job and wanted it, but couldn't get it solely because of her acne."

The woman quit soon after, Marlo wrote.

Messerschmidt, the employee who said she was fired in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination, said in 2008 that one of her managers, Brian Wolbers, changed her schedule to give her time off during one of Trump's visits because Trump "likes to see fresh faces" and "young girls."

Wolbers did not respond to a request for comment.

Gail Doner, who worked as a food server from 2007 to 2011, wrote that she was 60 and had often been frustrated by the inefficiency of the restaurant's young, inexperienced hostesses, who "usually were not competent but were kept anyway."

"The hostesses that were the youngest and the prettiest always got the best shifts," Doner wrote.

Meanwhile, Doner — who had 20 years of experience working for wine vendors, and was at "the top of (her) game" while working for Trump National — said managers slowly cut back her shifts until they stopped scheduling her at all, "effectively firing (her)."

"It did not appear to me that this reduction in shifts was happening to any of the younger, more attractive female food servers," Doner said.

She added: "I chose not to fight to get my job back because by that point I was fed up with the toxic environment and the way that I was treated."

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 12:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, though this is clearly a variable in humans.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 12:14 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
In short I found your argument from authority to be very ( ludicrously) far short of convincing. I don't think the fallacious/ non fallacious divide here is nearly as clear as you suppose, though I recognize that you regard the political commentators you frequent as infallable. I don't.

You are a careless and inattentive reader.

Now, you owe me an answer in return, do you not.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 12:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Our beliefs become impervious to the facts in a process psychologists call cognitive immunization.

Thank goodness somebody recognizes that it exists. Now the saying, You can lead a horse to water, comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 12:40 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

It probably seems as if I have no respect for you at all when actually that is not true. I just think you are stuck in a hard place like probably a lot of old time conservative republicans have been since the beginning of the tea party on up to Donald Trump which seems like the climax (sorry for the word) of the tea party. I don't agree with old time republicans but at least I understood them. What you don't seem to get (or want to face or admit) is right now with Trump the choice seems to go beyond regular disagreements between a conservative government and judges and a liberal government and judges. Trump is in a class by himself. But enough on that, I don't expect you to agree or even credence to what say.


Thank you for the sentiments and the trust, though it does appear that the good feelings didn't make it to the end of your post. I was brought up as a conservative Democrat by Irish immigrants: a father who served as one in Congress for a few decades and a mother who, when I chose to go to the Naval Academy, was disappointed I wasn't headed to Ireland and the IRA.
Life and my understanding of history have taught me to be very skeptical of experts and, in particular, those who promise to reform human behavior or impose organizational "solutions" for the complexity of human behavior on the rest of us. If nothing else, the 20th century demonstrated the evil folly of such enterprises.

I don't know what you may have in mind as "an old time Republican", though it is true that I have come to dislike most Republican candidates less than I do their Democrat opponents.

In particular I have learned to be exceedingly skeptical of people who seek power, and wish to be judged on the goodness of their intentions, as opposed to the results they actually achieve. (We have a vivid examplar of that one in the White House now.) My professional experience has also taught me to dread people in authority who deny or evade personal accountability for their actions or inactions in meeting their responsibilities, or who actively corrupt the organizatrions they lead for personal gain.

I believe the choice before us now is between an affirmation of a wrong-headed policy that is already achieving bad results and promises more, now in the hands of an irresponsible, unaccountable, corrupt leader; and a new beginning, in a different direction, in the hands of one who, though a bit impulsive and unpredictable, will likely do less active harm and may undo some of the excesses of its predecessor. I find the choice easy to make. It appears I am not alone in that judgmnent.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 12:44 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

You are a careless and inattentive reader.

Now, you owe me an answer in return, do you not.


I dson't deny the criticism, but don't know what I missed, or what you are reffering to. Tell me that and you'll get your answer.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 01:01 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Entrepreneurs aren't a limited resource.


Agreed; though successful ones are far less numerous as you, yourself pointed out. Time-serving paycheck recipients are fairly common too..
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 02:04 pm
@georgeob1,
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
The contradictions implicit in these juxtaposed thoughts are quite breathtaking !

Point them out.


I think they are just as obvious as is the use you made of an argument from authority in your post. I will gladly point out the contradictions if you will explain just what you mean by the fallacy associasted with an argument from authority.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:17:48