“make the Sands Glow” and “why cant we use nukes” Trump isnt a dove. And Trump Cheered on the Iraq war.
If you believe this nonsense , you probably believed and voted W Bush when he promised a “humble foreign Policy” .
Remember that?
Trump doesnt even have to drop a bomb to cause a few million deaths. He’s threatened to abandon Japan , South Korea and East Europe. North Korea is openly hoping he will be elected. Thats how wars start.
I think you failed to notice I said “true” to your Trump claim of 100,000. So I wouldn’t vote for Trump either, were I American.
But facts are facts. Hillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump, and she is more right wing (Republican) than Trump. Though Trump is more Authoritarian than Hillary.
Adam Black you commit strawman and other fallacies.
Neither hitler nor Mussolini is running. Hence your strawman falls in flames.
Come on, surely you can do better! 😉
I think I would rather the opinion of Slate and political spectrum than some biased commentors on the net. Yes I have bias too. I am biased against corruption, war, death, etc. And quite possibly Slate and political compass may also have biases, but I think I would go with them as they provide better arguments than both of you. To me anyway.
_”What country do you live in, that you think you will be better off if Hillary loses, and Trumps wins?”_
Nope. Never said that. Go back up to my comment where I agreed with you on 100,000 deaths. I mean, lets not quibble about numbers, but I think he is a moron, and he will be as big an embarrassment to the USA as Putin has been to Russia. And I don’t like Putin either.
Does it matter where I am? Whoever America chooses as their president is going to have significant effect on the rest of the world. Some more than others. Which I believe entitles us to have a say, even if we cant vote.
My opinion gathered from watching the presidential circus, reading the articles, has given me the impression that Hillary will be a bigger disaster for the global population. That doesn’t mean I prefer Trump instead.
Now you might correctly argue I am too far away from the source, but the flip side of the argument also applies. You are too close, and appear to have loyalties. I have very little loyalties.Though I am predominantly a lefty.
Washington Post and CNN apparently have senior DNC members (Hillary supporters) on their editorial boards too. so there goes their editorial independence.
Adam Black no I don’t know what “war halk” means? Please explain 🙂
And why do you continue to harp on about Trump? I don’t disagree with you that trump is a stooge.
Also, I already stated CNN and Washington Post as being the DNC’s, and therefore Hillary’s mouthpiece. So you’re not paying attention. If you want to persuade me you have to find sources of Trumps estimate as a bigger war hawk. [correct spelling].
Mind you, Trump talks, but afaik he’s never committed any crimes [of torture or such], or caused deaths.
Hillary has actually served as a senator and secretary and voted and or directed actions that according to some caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Iraq War for one.
Admittedly Trump hasn’t been given the opportunity yet. But the Salon article also alludes to Hillary and the Clinton Fund’s connections to the military industry. Certainty that she will be paying them back for their loyalty and support. What really damns Hillary is her beliefs. Hillary is more likely to win, and that is the most scariest thing of all.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
You have picked one biased editorial in Slate which is wholly based on just 1 article in NYT.
Neither is the official opinion of NYT-times or Slate. You say you trust Slate over me.. OK?
In 30 seconds, you can hundreds of terrified Articles in Slate Against Trump and even Pro Hillary.
Heres in article in Slate callign out this very nonsense you are spinning.
Adam Black “You actually haven’t defended your outrageous claim that Trump is less right wing or less hawkish.”
But it’s not my claim. It’s political compass.
“But whatever criterion you are using”
I don’t know. I am only using political compass. Admittedly there are a few other news articles that corroborate the same conclusion, that Hillary is more Republican than Trump, but if using online poll sites, or major online news articles counts as criterion then that is my criterion. Otherwise quit trying to pin me down as if I made that stuff up about her.
“You have picked one biased editorial in Slate”
Yes, and I said as much. I said it was biased. And I can assure you there are more biased editorials about Hillary being a badass on Slate, and other major media sites. You shouldn’t be surprised by that, because there is an election going on.
“In 30 seconds, you can hundreds of terrified Articles in Slate Against Trump …”
Adam Black I’m getting bored with your infatuation with Trump. I don’t care as much about him, nor do I fear him as much as you do, or as much as Hillary’s campaign hopes we fear him. Yes, Hillary has been working a fear campaign too. Post muted.
Satyr Icon — The US default policy since the 1947 Truman doctrine has been active military intervention in foreign affairs. The whole system is geared up to act that way — look at how JFK, who came from a non-interventionist family (his father was a leader of the movement to keep the US out of WWII) blundered so quickly into the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.
I think even a President Sanders would have ended up blundering into a foreign conflict the same way, without quite knowing how he got there (just as equally kind and peaceful President Carter blundered into the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw in Iran), though it’s admittedly worse when the president is on board with intervention right from the start.
Until the US can fix the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about, the most important thing will be to have a president who has some kind of limit, and will stop before an irreversible escalation, as President Truman did resisting Gen MacArthur’s demands for “tactical nuclear attacks” in Korea, or President Kennedy did when he stood up to Gen LeMay and refused to launch a surprise “preemptive” nuclear strike against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Mr Trump can’t even control his own tweeting. I strongly disapprove of Ms Clinton’s interventionist stands, but a continuation of the Bush-Obama foreign military intervention is orders of magnitude less harmful to humanity than the probable harm from a President Trump.
In the meantime, what needs to change is the MIC itself, so that a future President Kennedy, Carter, or Sanders will actually have the ability to keep the US out of conflicts by default.
Satyr Icon — As for left-right, I find the political compass ranking a bit puzzling (I’m usually a fan), since Ms Clinton’s domestic platform is far to the left of Mr Trump’s — look at gun control, education, reproductive rights, social programs, progressive taxation, etc. They must be weighting protectionism very heavily (where Mr Trump is very slightly to the left). I do agree with putting her slightly in the authoritarian sector, but not nearly so close to Mr “arrest journalists who disagree with me” Trump.
I suspect the Political Compass quiz is getting a bit dated over the years as the shibboleth left/right issues have changed. Here’s a much better, point by point comparison of the candidates:
Never Stop Posting 
I’d be fine with up to 12 sacrificed babies.
LikeLike
Paul Duggan
If Trump wins you will get that x 100,000.
LikeLike
Adam Black Oh. Is this to stop Trump? I was just describing an average weekend.
LikeLike
Paul Duggan you get the 13th one free for 12.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon But isn’t 13 unlucky?
LikeLike
Paul Duggan only for the 13th baby.
LikeLike
Adam Black true.
And if Clinton wins you will get that 1,000.000 times for every year she’s in office.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
LikeLike
Satyr Icon Bullshit.
“make the Sands Glow” and “why cant we use nukes” Trump isnt a dove. And Trump Cheered on the Iraq war.
If you believe this nonsense , you probably believed and voted W Bush when he promised a “humble foreign Policy” .
Remember that?
Trump doesnt even have to drop a bomb to cause a few million deaths. He’s threatened to abandon Japan , South Korea and East Europe. North Korea is openly hoping he will be elected. Thats how wars start.
LikeLike
Adam Black Shhh. You can’t use facts. Hillary haters hate those.
LikeLike
Lol Adam Black, I’m not American.
I think you failed to notice I said “true” to your Trump claim of 100,000. So I wouldn’t vote for Trump either, were I American.
But facts are facts. Hillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump, and she is more right wing (Republican) than Trump. Though Trump is more Authoritarian than Hillary.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon But facts are facts.
True but you have trouble detecting them from delusions.
Hillary is a bigger warhawk than Trump
False
and she is more right wing (Republican) than Trump.
Crazy, crazy false.
Though Trump is more Authoritarian than Hillary. You think?
I think under your definition of left wing you would add Hitler and Mussolini.
You think Jailing women who have abortions, and rounding up 11 million people and threatening nuclear war, isnt right wing?
What country do you live in, that you think you will be better off if Hillary loses, and Trumps wins?
LikeLike
Adam Black you commit strawman and other fallacies.
Neither hitler nor Mussolini is running. Hence your strawman falls in flames.
Come on, surely you can do better! 😉
I think I would rather the opinion of Slate and political spectrum than some biased commentors on the net. Yes I have bias too. I am biased against corruption, war, death, etc. And quite possibly Slate and political compass may also have biases, but I think I would go with them as they provide better arguments than both of you. To me anyway.
_”What country do you live in, that you think you will be better off if Hillary loses, and Trumps wins?”_
Nope. Never said that. Go back up to my comment where I agreed with you on 100,000 deaths. I mean, lets not quibble about numbers, but I think he is a moron, and he will be as big an embarrassment to the USA as Putin has been to Russia. And I don’t like Putin either.
But although you have pretty much a duopoly, you do have other candidates. http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2nm.shtml
Does it matter where I am? Whoever America chooses as their president is going to have significant effect on the rest of the world. Some more than others. Which I believe entitles us to have a say, even if we cant vote.
My opinion gathered from watching the presidential circus, reading the articles, has given me the impression that Hillary will be a bigger disaster for the global population. That doesn’t mean I prefer Trump instead.
Now you might correctly argue I am too far away from the source, but the flip side of the argument also applies. You are too close, and appear to have loyalties. I have very little loyalties.Though I am predominantly a lefty.
LikeLike
https://i.sli.mg/XDiJ4P.png
http://www.inquisitr.com/3398783/how-to-spot-a-shill-in-eight-easy-steps/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock#Correct_the_Record
Washington Post and CNN apparently have senior DNC members (Hillary supporters) on their editorial boards too. so there goes their editorial independence.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon
facts
trump on Torture
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/
trump on Assassinations
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-i-would-intentionally-kill-families-to-defeat-isis-b5484a36a7a2#.r81nvrdw2
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/19/general-advising-donald-trump-says-killing-terrorists-families-might-be-ok/
Trump ( For war ) on Iraq
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/donald-trump-says-he-was-against-the-iraq-war-thats-not-how-i-remember-it/462804/
trump on using nukes
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/08/06/trump-profoundly-disturbing-stance-nukes/SuJ37z23YGO3p8BsIrMxaJ/story.html
Trump on Nuke Proliferation
Donald Trump thinks more countries should have nuclear weapons. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/06/should-more-countries-have-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-thinks-so/
Maybe you dont know what “war-hawk” means.
LikeLike
Adam Black no I don’t know what “war halk” means? Please explain 🙂
And why do you continue to harp on about Trump? I don’t disagree with you that trump is a stooge.
Also, I already stated CNN and Washington Post as being the DNC’s, and therefore Hillary’s mouthpiece. So you’re not paying attention. If you want to persuade me you have to find sources of Trumps estimate as a bigger war hawk. [correct spelling].
Mind you, Trump talks, but afaik he’s never committed any crimes [of torture or such], or caused deaths.
Hillary has actually served as a senator and secretary and voted and or directed actions that according to some caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Iraq War for one.
Admittedly Trump hasn’t been given the opportunity yet. But the Salon article also alludes to Hillary and the Clinton Fund’s connections to the military industry. Certainty that she will be paying them back for their loyalty and support. What really damns Hillary is her beliefs. Hillary is more likely to win, and that is the most scariest thing of all.
So Adam Black are you a correct the record shill?
Just asking 🙂
LikeLike
Adam Black Note: “.000”
LikeLike
Paul Duggan I’m not a mind reader.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon Then how did you know I was wondering if you’re a mind reader?
LikeLike
Paul Duggan I’m not a mind reader but apparently you are?
LikeLike
Satyr Icon Please explain.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon I have committed “no strawman” .
You actually havent defended your outrageous claim that Trump is less right wing or less hawkish. Ive provided plenty plenty of links to refute it.
But whatever criterion you are using, I think it would probably apply to both of those leaders.
It’s not a “strawman” when Trump studies the speeches of one http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8
and praises the other ( mussolini) …
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-history-praising-dictators-n604801
Its a cogent criticism.
( plus
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/265353-trump-kim-jong-un-deserves-credit-for-taking-out-rivals
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-praises-putin-216929
http://www.businessinsider.com/dictator-donald-trump-praised-saddam-hussein-gaddafi-mussolini-kim-jong-un-politics-2016-7
)
Your logical fallacy is called “cherrypicking” .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking#In_Argumentation
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
You have picked one biased editorial in Slate which is wholly based on just 1 article in NYT.
Neither is the official opinion of NYT-times or Slate. You say you trust Slate over me.. OK?
In 30 seconds, you can hundreds of terrified Articles in Slate Against Trump and even Pro Hillary.
Heres in article in Slate callign out this very nonsense you are spinning.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/27/leon_panetta_tries_to_denounce_trump_hecklers_stop_him.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/07/hillary_s_email_scandal_was_overhyped.html
or
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/dissecting-donald-trumps-terrifying-interview-ny-times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/aziz-ansari-why-trump-makes-me-scared-for-my-family.html
LikeLike
Adam Black Note: “.000″”
LikeLike
Adam Black “You actually haven’t defended your outrageous claim that Trump is less right wing or less hawkish.”
But it’s not my claim. It’s political compass.
“But whatever criterion you are using”
I don’t know. I am only using political compass. Admittedly there are a few other news articles that corroborate the same conclusion, that Hillary is more Republican than Trump, but if using online poll sites, or major online news articles counts as criterion then that is my criterion. Otherwise quit trying to pin me down as if I made that stuff up about her.
“You have picked one biased editorial in Slate”
Yes, and I said as much. I said it was biased. And I can assure you there are more biased editorials about Hillary being a badass on Slate, and other major media sites. You shouldn’t be surprised by that, because there is an election going on.
“In 30 seconds, you can hundreds of terrified Articles in Slate Against Trump …”
Adam Black I’m getting bored with your infatuation with Trump. I don’t care as much about him, nor do I fear him as much as you do, or as much as Hillary’s campaign hopes we fear him. Yes, Hillary has been working a fear campaign too. Post muted.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon — The US default policy since the 1947 Truman doctrine has been active military intervention in foreign affairs. The whole system is geared up to act that way — look at how JFK, who came from a non-interventionist family (his father was a leader of the movement to keep the US out of WWII) blundered so quickly into the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.
I think even a President Sanders would have ended up blundering into a foreign conflict the same way, without quite knowing how he got there (just as equally kind and peaceful President Carter blundered into the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw in Iran), though it’s admittedly worse when the president is on board with intervention right from the start.
Until the US can fix the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about, the most important thing will be to have a president who has some kind of limit, and will stop before an irreversible escalation, as President Truman did resisting Gen MacArthur’s demands for “tactical nuclear attacks” in Korea, or President Kennedy did when he stood up to Gen LeMay and refused to launch a surprise “preemptive” nuclear strike against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Mr Trump can’t even control his own tweeting. I strongly disapprove of Ms Clinton’s interventionist stands, but a continuation of the Bush-Obama foreign military intervention is orders of magnitude less harmful to humanity than the probable harm from a President Trump.
In the meantime, what needs to change is the MIC itself, so that a future President Kennedy, Carter, or Sanders will actually have the ability to keep the US out of conflicts by default.
LikeLike
Satyr Icon — As for left-right, I find the political compass ranking a bit puzzling (I’m usually a fan), since Ms Clinton’s domestic platform is far to the left of Mr Trump’s — look at gun control, education, reproductive rights, social programs, progressive taxation, etc. They must be weighting protectionism very heavily (where Mr Trump is very slightly to the left). I do agree with putting her slightly in the authoritarian sector, but not nearly so close to Mr “arrest journalists who disagree with me” Trump.
I suspect the Political Compass quiz is getting a bit dated over the years as the shibboleth left/right issues have changed. Here’s a much better, point by point comparison of the candidates:
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/40-70/Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump
LikeLike
Satyr Icon I asked you ‘what country you live in?’ and your response is
“i never said that”
Yeah, that’s kind of the point. Why would I ask you if you had already said it?
What country are you from?
LikeLike