This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
She needs to make back gains in FL and OH. In fact, it may be too late for FL. He's probably flipped it.
No time for the Parkinson's piece, but time to search his site for favorable Hillary pieces from 9 years ago?
You're making a straw man argument. Nobody has said that every single word out of his mouth is a lie, so it's silly to argue as if they have They've said that he lies a lot. You can still get "worked up" because you don't know what is the truth and what is a lie. You've made this argument a lot, and frankly it's just silly and illogical.The Commish said:
Actually, I tend to think that the difference in your world view and mine can, in large part, be explained by your tendency to look at short-term outcomes versus my tendency to look at the long-term. You're OK with the NSA doing something now, while I see the problems it will cause down the road. You're OK with illegal immigration because it keeps prices low now. You're opposed to spending cuts because they hurt our economy now. You're OK with fracking because it lowers oil prices and burns cleaner now; I see ecological problems down the road.
I certainly don't think it's too late for Florida. The latest poll (Siena College) shows Hillary with a 1 point lead. She's much better organized in that state as well.
Tim:. This election is over. It's been over for awhile now. Obviously the campaigns can't say it, but you should stop with the daily/weekly highs and lows and just sit back and enjoy watching the crackpots.
You wouldn't know from driving around in Pensacola. Trump stickers/signs EVERYWHERE. I realize Pensacola isn't really Florida, but it's no less terrifying.
I would do just that if 538 gave Hillary an 80% chance of winning or higher- (though even 20% chance of Trump is enough to make me nervous.)
For what it's worth, condemning someone for "avoiding indictments" is a huge problem, because it encourages people to sling mud and levy unsubstantiated charges. Which has been the MO of many on the right (and some on the left) for quite some time now.
Yeah, I'm in southwest FL (actually driving by his rally today after work) and you see a love of trucks and cars with Trump stickers.
Oh, I trust Silver. His daily %'s are a snapshot and I don't doubt their accuracy on any given day.
Sorry....I can't count how many times it's been stated that Trump lies about everything
Again...it's not an argument, just an observation."Lies about everything" is not the same as "everything he says is a lie."Sorry....I can't count how many times it's been stated that Trump lies about everything
You are going WAY deep into the weeds here on this IMO. I'm not interested in the parsing of words. For the purpose of my comments, the bold rabbit hole isn't necessary. I made as clear as I possibly could what my point was above. I don't know how else to say it."Lies about everything" is not the same as "everything he says is a lie."Sorry....I can't count how many times it's been stated that Trump lies about everything
And it is an argument IMO, one you've made repeatedly. Your argument, as I understand it, is that if people think he's a liar they can't also be concerned about or fearful of the things he says. You said pretty much exactly that right here. It's nonsense, as I've explained. If you want to call in an observation instead of an argument, though, sure. I guess that just makes it an incorrect observation instead of an illogical argument.
You're assuming the outrage over what he says is always based on concern that he will implement it exactly as he says, but that's not the case, and the things are largely unrelated. He lies a lot, which is a concern. It's also a concern that he said he'd consider defaulting on our debts or stealing middle eastern oil, even if he was lying about it, because the consequences of making public statements like that (and what it says about him as a person) are significant even if those things never happen.
You appear to be inferring that once a person has made one false statement, that we can't trust any of their statements. Is that the case? Just curious.
"My point was illogical and invalid" would be a good start.You are going WAY deep into the weeds here on this IMO. I'm not interested in the parsing of words. For the purpose of my comments, the bold rabbit hole isn't necessary. I made as clear as I possibly could what my point was above. I don't know how else to say it.
tommyboy said:
No, you shouldn't. Read his bio, he's an intelligence analyst and gatherer, not a doctor.
In another email Blumenthal tells Hillary:
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05763251.pdf
Trump prepared remarks still sound odd and not well thought out. His off the cuff stuff seems like a middle school kid.
Another way to look at it is that when you set the bar at "Is this indictable?" you're setting the bar way, way too low. Many of us have been saying that from the very beginning of this email thing.
No, I am not inferring that. Only an idiot would equate every false statement.
Does the fact that Johnson is posting that crap revel anything to you, or is his word still credible despite the Times, Post, Politico, etc all saying the opposite?
There is nothing invalid or illogical in pointing out an inconsistency. But you have not done so. Instead you have noted two unrelated observations ("I think Trump lies a lot" and "I am troubled by many of the things that Trump says") and suggested that there was some inconsistency in believing both to be true. But that's not true, as I've explained repeatedly now, just in case the fact that literally no one else has tried to make this argument anywhere as far as I can tell.There's nothing invalid or illogical to pointing out that inconsistency
I would fly to Pennsylvania and drive people to the polls if it meant Trump would lose.
See my thread.
What I am pointing to is Blumenthal's email to Hillary that he emailed with Johnson. Do you believe that?
I am a neuropsychologist. Before going into private practice, I worked in two large, well-known hospitals in their Movement Disorders clinics. I am quite familiar with the range of Parkinsonian features. Although I have never evaluated Hillary--and therefore cannot say definitively one way or another--in my professional opinion, there just is no indication that she has Parkinson's disease. The link in whatever video was posted above with Ted Noel, MD...it's just absurd and littered with misunderstandings (deliberately or otherwise) about how PD would manifest. This should not be surprising, given that Dr. Noel is an anesthesiologist and not a neurologist or neuropsychologist. In other words, he probably knows a #### ton about sedatives, epidurals, and nerve blocking agents--and seems to have a penchant for alt-right conspiracy theories--but his knowledge of PD is likely to be only peripheral and maybe just slightly better than the average person on the street. It also should be a big red flag that he did not disclose his specialty, but instead said he's a "medical doctor with 36 years of experience". I don't know if he's a quack or not, but I do know he's a conservative advocate, and his analysis of video is non-credible--and downright laughable--when talking about PD (e.g., her head nodding is head nodding, not dyskinesia).
Well it's certainly worth a hell of a lot more than a guy who carefully studies a video of Clinton trying to be funny in a muffin shop when lots of reporters shouted questions at her about Warren as a possible VP pick and concludes the footage shows symptoms of Parkinson's disease. I'm pretty sure about that.
No....."Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie" Was very specific about this from the beginning. I'm not sure I've had a discussion with someone who'd be kind enough to go with your second comment of being "troubled by many of the things that Trump says". Most people are all in on him being the anti-Christ and while he's a liar that can't be trusted, they sure trust him when he says he wants to ban all Muslims.
1. Don't make me deal with the possibility that you don't understand the use of hyperbole.
A lie implies intent to deceive. Trump has no intent to deceive, he simply says whatever will get votes. The truth is of zero consequence to him. Frankly, he's not informed enough to even discriminate between what is true and what isn't. It's not a joke - he's truly a narcissistic sociopath.
In Trump's mind, it doesn't matter what you do as well as you 'get the mood of your country right'.
I truly didn't believe he could be any more ridiculous than he already was, but one thing has been made perfectly clear to me in the aftermath of the NYC bombs: This is his reality TV show. Nothing more. Well, nothing more than what's at stake. We're headed down a dark path with Trump and his supporters.
'Merica 2016- leading the world in false equivalencies and bad analogies.
That there are people like Sinn Fein around who equate the two candidates is so frustrating to me...
Yup. I also don't like that they often seem to not apply the same critical eye to the third party candidates the support. I think they're voting more in opposition of something (the major parties themselves or the absence of third party options or the quality of the major party candidates or whatever) than voting for something.
Sure, sometimes it's hyperbole, a lot of the time it doesn't appear to be and there's no clearing up of the point when asked. It happens frequently, and at least for me, and those are the situations I am talking about. Perhaps you've not heard this position. I've heard it a lot.
