Clinton V Trump - into the final three weeks.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

new thread. :)

Oh I see lweji joined in as well. Fine.

"Without trying to be too patronising"

Phew. You dodged that bullet

I am capable of reading your links. I am capable of comprehension. I am also capable of holding an informed view and disagreeing. Please do not assume that just because I don't write long posts pointing out the endless arguments as to why I believe trump would be a dangerous man to have in the white house I do not understand the arguments. Please also do not assume that your passive aggressive and patronising posts, assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is simply incapable of understanding the arguments, are any less offensive than any direct insult.

The NY Times has published a list of the 281 people & organisations Trump has insulted on Twitter since declaring his presidency.

NY Times

Eloquent, isn't he?

There were only links, you ignored and went straight for the nasty and stayed with it, why bother trying trying to justify it now. Showed your true colours.

"Oh I see lweji joined in as well. Fine"

Don't worry WW. Mumsnet is rigged.

It's not rigged nor was I suggesting it. But there's nothing I can do to stop you all being like this even when I just post links instead of my own arguments. You aren't here for that. You're here for the echo, you've shown it. And just to get your rocks off having a good old sneer.

If you are THAT interested (which I doubt) you could read some of my links.

I did. All of them. Only one came close to reaching even the lowest of bars for what might be considered 'evidence' and even that one was very iffy in the conclusions it drew.

None of them were even vaguely independent or impartial.

Yeah sure you think that - you probably thought that before you clicked. And decided to carry on thinking it afterwards because it's too difficult to do anything else. Like most Trump and Clinton supporters, especially the latter, it's unconscionable to admit the other side has a point about anything.

WW - the presence of links doesn't mean the argument is clear cut. You will have chosen the links that support your arguments. There's plenty of sources out there to refute these, but I've saved myself the effort and frustration of posting these, as you've already dismissed the whole media as being against him (there might be a reasons for this eh?)

It's not clear cut. It's interesting. It's something to talk about for people who are interested and intrigued by what's going on. Which is pointless I realise when all people want to do is be nasty and sneer.

You just can't stop yourself can you? It's knee jerk sneering and sarcasm.

If you're going to accuse people of sneering, at least accept you don't exactly have the moral high ground on that point

Yeah sure you think that - you probably thought that before you clicked. And decided to carry on thinking it afterwards because it's too difficult to do anything else. Like most Trump and Clinton supporters, especially the latter, it's unconscionable to admit the other side has a point about anything.

Nope. I'm not really a supporter of either. I'm also someone who has had my opinions changed by information and evidence posted by others on MN, sometimes in ways quite surprising to me. I like evidence, you see, and don't mind having my preconceptions challenged.

It's worth keeping your mind open to the idea that sometimes, if people are saying the links you're sharing are unconvincing and poorly evidenced, it's possible that they're not saying that because they're biased or closed-minded. It might just be because as evidence, they don't make the grade.

He's been insulted and accused of everything and anything others could think of.

It's only an insult when it isn't true, and there is nothing wrong with making justifiable accusations. It is not, for instance, an insult to accuse Trump of thinking of women as sex objects, because the evidence for that comes out of his own mouth. It is equally not an insult to accuse him of lying, because he has been caught out time after time after time. It is not an insult to say his policies don't stand up to examination, because manifestly they do not. It's not an insult to say he is anti-feminist, because you have only to look at what he has said about abortion.

I agree that he appears to think he has lost, hence the resort to vote-rigging claims.

No I don't at all admit that - in fact I've said about fifty fucking times that I think we all want the same thing - good things for all people, basically, but see different paths to it. But for those people who can only operate through relentless fuckery and contempt and sneering I do reserve my disdain. Not for their views. For that. Speak as you find.

Reclaiming that moral high ground there then

Yes - that's what I said.

"Relentless fuckery" is a phrase I might steal and use myself though. It's a good one. Thanks WW

You plainly can't tell the difference between someone's views and the way they express them. If you're contemptuous and sneery and abusive you can't complain when other people disdain that. You cant say: oh that's because of my views. It's not. We probably all want good things for less well off people, social justice, universal opportunity, all that. We differ on how to get there. How many times does it need to be said. But there you are with the 'fucking insane' like some kind of involuntary hiccup. It's fucking tedious.

You will have chosen the links that support your arguments. There's plenty of sources out there to refute these, but I've saved myself the effort and frustration of posting these, as you've already dismissed the whole media as being against him (there might be a reasons for this eh?)

Yes.

I didn't see a comment from WW on Hillary's voting record that I posted.
I guess a line in a speech for the benefit of south American bankers reflects better what Hillary is for.

Biscuit big deal. Lweji I did comment on that. Perhaps you didn't read the comment. I looked at it and posted a comment.

what bollocks, what a bollocky way to discuss this

Now is that a view, or just how you express yourself. Help me out as I plainly can't tell the difference.

You can so rarely 'refute' in this kind of debate. It's always about interpretation. A lot of it is about choice - what to read, what's been covered etc, which sources you accept. For example I could link to the podesta emails or wiki material or jake Sullivan emails on drudge or Breitbart. You would say: yes but look at the source. But that's the ONLY source, apart from the wiki dump itself. They are the only people looking. And when you look at the emails it obviously is worth reporting: so it's incredibly telling tat it appears nowhere else. But you don't have to think about that. You just say nope - not that messenger- and you don't have to trouble yourself with what's inside.