32
   

Will Donald Trump Be Afraid To Debate Hillary Clinton?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 02:19 pm
@blatham,
Now you have me confused.

You made an argument from authority, which I found to be weak and highly suspect, though I didn't call it fallacious - mostly because I believe most such arguments, outside fairly easily identified domains, to be unsufficient (the fallacy exists only when the proponent asserts the conclusion is necerssarily true as a result of the argument (from authority) alone. (Even I never thought that was the case in your post. Now I wonder if I am wrong in that.)

You then accused me of not understanding the fallacy. I found that to be highly contradictory. ( Have you been reading some Medieval Dominican theologians???)
Builder
 
  1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 03:01 pm
Apparently this was outside the presidential debate.

https://www.facebook.com/telesurenglish/videos/924276934382376/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 06:53 pm
@georgeob1,
If God would have wanted us to bother going back to Medieval religious thinkers he wouldn't have invented Scalia.

Let's focus. 1) Is it your proposition or belief that Trump is qualified to be President? 2) Would you argue that the broad rejection of him as a candidate (and this is unprecedented in scale) by so many knowledgeable and intelligent conservatives is meaningless or rather is that a fact which citizens ought to attend to as a matter of prudence? 3) Do you hold that the arguments advanced by all those people regarding why they hold Trump unqualified to be faulty in some way?
hingehead
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 07:29 pm
Keep the faith!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtijLDUXEAAfSh9.jpg:large
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  5  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 08:41 pm
The blatant sexism that has taken place throughout this election is captured in a few sentences:

"Imagine a woman who showed up [to a presidential debate] unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times.

Let’s further imagine that she had 5 kids by 3 men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes.

Wait… there’s more: she has never held any elected office in her life.” -Michelle Vitalione
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:45 pm
@blatham,
Well actually the chief Medieval religious thinker, Thomas Aquinas, acknowledged that what he called as the argument from authority (he didn't use the word proof ) was persuasive, but less than a real proof. After all authorities have been proven wrong before (and even back then, wise men knew that.)

In response to your interrogation;
1. I don't l know of any reliable a priori qualification standard for effectively holding that office. Looking back on our history there's a great variety of individual contemporaneous estimates of the qualifications of the candidates, Some (such as for Lincoln) were proven dead wrong in practice. Other candidates, looking back, were much overrated (Wilson was a disaster, despite his august academic credentials). Overall the available predictions were reasonably accurate, but there were indeed major misestimates. Still there is no absolute standard: we have a specific set of choices in this election, and a relative judgment must be made. I believe that if elected Donald Trump may well do much better for the country now than would Hillary Clinton. I also believe Hillary has as many significantly adverse factors ( evasion of responsibility & accountability, deceit, corruption in office)) as does Trump.
2. I see broad rejections by self-appointed spokesmen out there for both contenders. By what standard (or prejudice) do you choose among them? I'm not a perfectly consistent doctrinaire Conservative (or anything else for that matter) and am not generally swayed by such prejudgments, recognizing, as I do, that in this election we must make relative judgments about the effectiveness of the contenders in the specific conditions facing the country now, and the challenges that appear likely in the near future. It's situational and relative judgment, not an absolute one. Finally I suspect I am less respectful and more skeptical of the judgments of pundits, newspapers, organized political action groups and things like that than you appear to be.
3. I've heard arguments frrom some against Trump that I believe have merit: and others which I discount or even reject. However. I have not read all of the arguments of all of the newspaper editors and others who have announced their view that Trump is "unqualified" and frankly suspect the overereach that such preemptive judgments imply -- a bit pretentious and self-important, I think.

I fear these are not the compact answers you seek (or is it demand). However they are as complete and truthful as I can make them. I hope you will recognize that.

There is significant internal dissent and division in the Republican Party now, and a lack of any single clear leader. In contrast the Democrat Party has been living with a single designated heir for several years, It's certainly true that as the needed , polite opponent Bernie Sanders ignited some dissenting fires that were not easily put out, but it was done. The contrast between the respective party situations now is indeed stark: both are a bit abnormal, but neither is fatal. Reagan also faced serious dissent and resistence among Republicans but he achieved remarkable unity in office.

cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Thu 29 Sep, 2016 09:50 pm
@georgeob1,
I dislike Trump for his history of racial bigotry and his treatment of women.
Contrast that to Hillary who has spent her career to help children.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  -1  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 05:02 am
@panzade,
Earlier in the race Hillary tried to go after Trump for sexism and he went after her re Bill's affairs and Hillary quickly STFU. It's about to get really nasty because Hillary has gone down this path again. Trump's surrogates have begun going after Bill, and Hillary for the way they treated women during that bimbo eruption era.

Hillary is desperate because despite having every major media on her side and a low-life opponent she just can't get a comfortable lead. All of her surrogates, including the recent efforts by Barrack and Michelle, have a rather pathetic message of not how great Hillary is, but just vote to not allow Trump to get elected. Most of Hillary's speeches consist of her running down Trump as well.

The thing about the next debate, considering the needles haven't moved much for either candidate after the first one, is Trump could(if he wakes up) actually improve but Hillary can't, she performed as good as could be expected.
hingehead
 
  4  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 06:10 am
@Brand X,
Wishful thinking, but not impossible. Trump's problem is he tries shaming Hilary for Bill's sins he alienates even more women. And make no mistake Republican women are turning against him - and not because Hilary's a woman - but because they are - and they've dealt with this sexist **** all their lives.
engineer
 
  3  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 06:28 am
@hingehead,
Yes, attacking Clinton directly for her husband's actions is likely a losing move. It will be red meat for his rallies, but it's not going to make him look "presidential". Going down the sleazy route is what you let your surrogates do. Giuliani has been hitting this for a while. (And what is up with him? I used to think he was an ok guy.) Plus, this is nothing new. Just about everyone knows about Bill's adventures. The Trump revelations are hitting him hard because they are new information for the undecided public. When Trump is already getting hit for rampant misogyny, compounding it by blaming a wife for her husband's indiscretions is not going to make women like him more.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 06:34 am
Likely ending in a stalemate. You can consider that a pun as well if you wish. Wink
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 07:38 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:
Trump's surrogates have begun going after Bill, and Hillary for the way they treated women during that bimbo eruption era.


and more Republican and independent female voters are turning away from Trump - it's been interesting to watch

I've detested Giuliani for decades but his newest shtick is burning Trump, not anyone else.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 08:43 am
What I need to ask people who are still supporting Trump is this:
How can you entrust a man who cannot restrain himself from lashing out endlessly against any perceived slight with the power to unleash world-ending nuclear destruction?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 08:56 am
@georgeob1,
I've read very little from/about Aquinas. I'll just presume here that you have him right and that his epistemological problem of biblical authority wasn't relevant to the writing you recollect. So, if authority (in the sense of knowledge/experience/expertise in the subject or skill) is persuasive, then it surely must be the case that multiple instances of such valid authorities saying X ought to be even more persuasive than a single authoritative voice saying X.

USA Today this morning...
Quote:
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
http://usat.ly/2cG4DOV

Interrogation? A rather strong word to describe being asked three questions on a discussion site.

Quote:
I don't l know of any reliable a priori qualification standard for effectively holding that office.

a priori is the wrong lens, george. Here's where you want to hang your hat...
"A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge."

Quote:
I believe that if elected Donald Trump may well do much better for the country now than would Hillary Clinton.

You hedge with that "may". We can only guess what you think might be the probabilities here but it seems you would prefer Trump in the WH over Clinton. If so, I find that unfathomable other than as a consequence of ideological or partisan rigidity. Would you think Palin likely better than Clinton? Ann Coulter? Roy Moore? Roger Stone? I cannot perceive any criteria you might be using here other than GOP allegiance and/or a blanket anti-liberal ideology. Would you be comfortable with Trump in control of another nation with nuclear capability?

Quote:
Finally I suspect I am less respectful and more skeptical of the judgments of pundits, newspapers, organized political action groups and things like that than you appear to be.

I am respectful of uncountable other judgments and opinions. Because there are uncountable numbers of people who are smarter than me, more knowledgeable than me, and more clear and careful in their thinking than I am.

Now, I have rather a lot to get done over the next while so I'll likely be absent for a time. With luck, this rough orange beast will slouch back to where he came from.


izzythepush
 
  3  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 09:55 am
Quote:
Donald Trump has attacked a former beauty pageant winner who criticised him for alleged sexist and misogynistic remarks as "disgusting".

In a stream of tweets, the Republican presidential nominee urged Americans to examine Alicia Machado's personal history and her "sex tape".

He implied his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton had secured US citizenship for Venezuelan-born Ms Machado.

In response, Mrs Clinton tweeted: "This is unhinged, even for Trump."

Ms Machado says she was called "Miss Piggy" by the Republican candidate for the White House when he owned the Miss Universe beauty pageant after she put on weight after winning the title in 1996. She also says he called her "Miss Housekeeping" because of her Latina heritage.

Her case was raised by Mrs Clinton in the first presidential debate earlier this week as an example of Mr Trump's attitude to women. In his early-morning Twitter outburst, Mr Trump said Ms Machado had a "terrible" past that a "duped" Mrs Clinton had overlooked before holding her up "as an 'angel'".

He added: "Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a US citizen so she could use her in the debate?"

In her Twitter response, Mrs Clinton asked: "What kind of man stays up all night to smear a woman with lies and conspiracy theories?"



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37521619
revelette2
 
  2  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 10:28 am
@izzythepush,
It is bizarre presidential candidates use twitter to attack each other. I am not equalizing it them in that observation just kind of a nod to technical world we live. You would think before Trump would make accusations of Hillary obtaining for Alicia Machado her citizenship for the United States just so she could use her in a debate and so she can vote I guess, he would have some proof of such, but he don't. Typical. Is everyone who is mentioned by candidates and Presidents now fair game to be dragged through the mud? Why couldn't he have just apologized rather than to keep digging for dirt on her and insults? It would have been over had he apologized as he should have done in the first place. It wouldn't have erased his history of insulting and mistreating women, but at least this particular story would be over. Why would he think people would think differently of him for calling her fat names because she may or may not have a sex tape? Who cares about that? I don't .
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 10:30 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
We can only guess what you think might be the probabilities here but it seems you would prefer Trump in the WH over Clinton. If so, I find that unfathomable other than as a consequence of ideological or partisan rigidity. Would you think Palin likely better than Clinton? Ann Coulter? Roy Moore? Roger Stone?


since he's in the news right now

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/09/30/alabamas-ten-commandments-judge-suspended-rest-term-defying-federal-judiciary-over-same-sex

Quote:
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary today suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for the rest of his term in office.

The Court ruled that Moore violated the canons of judicial ethics by ordering Alabama's probate judges to defy a federal court injunction requiring them to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on a non-discriminatory basis. This is the second time in 13 years that Moore has been sanctioned as a result of ethics complaints filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.



snood
 
  3  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 10:44 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
unfathomable other than as a consequence of ideological or partisan rigidity


Well put. It really just doesn't make sense to me
that otherwise reasonable people can still support this man.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  4  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 11:13 am
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r147/panzade/image_zpsetcgtkub.jpeg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 30 Sep, 2016 11:20 am
@revelette2,
I fully agree with all that. A first !!
0 Replies
 
 

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 12:58:31