Donald Trump Freekin Rocks!

Mick Doobie said:
I quoted LeBron James, therefore I was immediately accused of making an ad hominem attack?

You're being silly, man.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

I think Willis is right.

No, Mick, you were accused of an ad hominem attack because you weren't focusing on what James said (the meaning and content of his words), but, rather, how he said it. Anything outside of his actual intent, including his mannerisms, tone, or appearance, that attempts to discredit his message would be an ad hominem. Regardless of him making a grammatical error, he had a point in his message. And you are dismissing his entire argument altogether because of that - that's an ad hominem. You are attacking the person instead of their argument.
 
lol

My initial post, I quoted the guy. I made no attack. It was you guys who jumped to defend against an attack that did not occur, putting his use of improper grammar as the focus. I don't know, a little bit racist, maybe.

I still think he should run for office. Maybe that's just what is needed, an ability to express things in a way that all of those uneducated folks in Ohio can understand.

Mac Doobie said:
You have to give to some of these athletes, though, they are thinkers. I mean, they are on it. For instance...

LeBron James was recently asked why he thought the state of Ohio went to Trump in the election. After a moment to gather his thoughts in contemplation, LeBron responded, "I don't think a lot of people was educated." To further clarify his statement, he added, "They make choices and say things that's uneducated."

Hm. Food for thought, food. for. thought. Dude ought to maybe run for office, slam dunk. Just don't count on the state of Ohio. 'Cause, well, you know.
Click to expand...
 
andrushkwit said:
And you are dismissing his entire argument altogether because of that - that's an ad hominem. You are attacking the person instead of their argument.
Click to expand...

2 words, Hillary Clinton. To make the argument (IBB said there was no argument, no debate?) that the majority of the electorate in Ohio went for Trump simply because "they make choices and say things that's uneducated" is dumb, uneducated, and easily disputed. The people were very much educated as to who Hillary Clinton is, she has been in public figure for decades. Hillary Clinton herself would and has made the argument that Comey tainted her image in the eyes of the electorate and contributed to her loss. Comey went on TV and detailed her corrupt nature and criminal behavior. The people were very much educated and aware the she is a despicable human being. It is an insult for an uneducated and seemingly illiterate baskeball player to argue that the majority of the Ohio electorate are uneducated because they did not vote for the candidate of his choice.

There were two candidates. One would become President. Whether one voted for Trump, or against Clinton, the outcome was the same.
 
So let's recap.

Guy makes an argument that other people are uneducated, while demonstrating his own lack of education.

Onlooker calls attention to guy's own lack of education.

Crowd calls, foul. It is an unfair ad hominem to call attention to guy's lack of education. His lack of education has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is his accusation that other people are uneducated.

:facepalm:
 
Mick Doobie said:
So let's recap.

Guy makes an argument that other people are uneducated, while demonstrating his own lack of education.

Onlooker calls attention to guy's own lack of education.

Crowd calls, foul. It is an unfair ad hominem to call attention to guy's lack of education. His lack of education has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is his accusation that other people are uneducated.

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Yes. And the fact that you disregard his comment is the issue. So then...would you dismiss a Dr. who is overweight? How about a dentist who has had a cavity? A police officer with prior speeding tickets?

The issue is that you are failing to acknowledge that he is making a point. You are using the person as your defense instead of their argument.
 
Really? :facepalm:

Man, this is just going to go round and round.

Choosing to vote for candidate A over candidate B is subjective, there are many many considerations which may influence and determine a candidate of choice. Dr, dentist, police officer?..that is just a ridiculous comparison. Laughable. Consider the source is absolutely applicable. What are LeBron James' qualifications to determine that "a lot" of the 2.8 million Ohioans who voted for Trump did so because they were uneducated? None. It is opinion, only. So I look at his opinion in the full context in which it was given. He made the unqualified argument that upwards of 2.8 million people was uneducated while also demonstrating his own lack of education and apparent lack of desire to become educated at his advanced age so that he may verbally communicate properly in his native tongue.

I realize what he said is your preferred narrative. So you want the focus to be on his "point" rather than his ignorance. Good luck with that in Ohio.
 
Mick Doobie said:
Comey went on TV and detailed her corrupt nature and criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

That is wildly inaccurate.

Just out of curiosity, precisely who gave you that impression?

Comey went on TV to explicitly state that there was no criminal case to be made, and he said absolutely nothing about corruption.

Do you even know what corruption is?

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI
 
Wow. Of course not, Comey is corrupt himself. He detailed her lies and illegal activities, and then announced the decision that charges would not be brought against her because the determinination was made that there was no intent. Oops, she didn't mean to. It has come to light that he had made that determination well before the investigation was even complete. Oopsie, one of the "most qualified Presidential candidates in history" was simply too stupid to realize that to procure and disseminate classified documents might wind you up behind bars.

You're in the D.C area, IBB, I presume you are required to have a security clearance? If you did what she did, do you think you would skirt? Don't bet on it.

Comey, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."

 
If Comey is so wrong and corrupt in saying there isn't a case to be made for criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, then Donald Trump's justice department - lead by Jeff Sessions - could reverse that decision.

Why haven't they done that - in your opinion?

What evidence is there to suggest Jim Comey is corrupt?
 
ibleedburgundy said:
If Comey is so wrong and corrupt in saying there isn't a case to be made for criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, then Donald Trump's justice department - lead by Jeff Sessions - could reverse that decision.

Why haven't they done that - in your opinion?

What evidence is there to suggest Jim Comey is corrupt?
Click to expand...

Why haven't they done that? I am not certain. Perhaps initially it would have been bad optics, winner of the election proceeds forth to throw loser in prison. That sort of thing just doesn't happen in America. Perhaps cronyism. Trump at one time and probably still does consider the Clintons friends. Maybe it was thought best to just move forward after the election. Maybe that is just how things work in Washington, the elite are above the laws you and I are subject to prison time for violating. Charges should be brought against her. And if justice prevails, she would be convicted and put behind bars. At minimum the findings of the investigation should have resulted in Clinton being stripped of security clearance. I'm not sure how that works, but I would assume it would eliminate her eligibility to become President. Comey could not have that. He has made statements indicating he did not want the investigation to have the appearance of influencing the election. It was too late, the cat was out of the bag, in the eyes of the public the incompetence and/or corrupt nature of Clinton was clear....or should I say it was confirmed.

You do not believe Clinton violated any laws - in your opinion? Or, at minimum, her incompetence in the handling of classified information should have resulted in the determination that she was unfit and unqualified to become President?

Comey detailed how Clinton violated the law in her handling of classified information and documentation, she lied repeatedly to investigators and to the public, and then he proceeded to announce it would be unreasonable to bring charges. It is unreasonable for the director of the FBI to not bring charges when the laws concerning the procurement and dissemination of classified information have been violated. Individuals have been tried and imprisoned for far less. It is inexplicable. It stinks. smells of corruption. Investigations of the matter have revealed that Comey had drafted a statement clearing Clinton of any charges months prior to the end of the investigation, while the investigation had not concluded and was ongoing. When the director of the FBI determines the outcome of an investigation prior to all evidence being gathered, it is not Alex Jones territory to strongly suspect there is corruption in the process.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
The party I'm not a member of is corrupt.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Corruption is not the sole domain of any particular political party. I think the common consensus is that I am not alone in that opinion. The elites in Washington are not subject to the same standards as the average citizen. Example, Hillary Clinton got off and is still walking the streets.

Hell, if they held politicians to the same standard and brought charges against Clinton, no telling who in Washington would be completely safe from prosecution. Not many, I suspect.
 
Mick Doobie said:
I disagree. Corruption is not the sole domain of any particular political party. I think the common consensus is that I am not alone in that opinion. The elites in Washington are not subject to the same standards as the average citizen. Example, Hillary Clinton got off and is still walking the streets.

Hell, if they held politicians to the same standard and brought charges against Clinton, no telling who in Washington would be completely safe from prosecution. Not many, I suspect.
Click to expand...

How ironic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top