PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah the Tactician Trump intentionally creating distractions vs the Inept Trump who just incidentally benefits from always doing things that cause distractions all the damn time eternal debate.

I think that debate should probably be put to rest. It no longer looks like "Inept Trump" ever really existed.

He'd much rather have us all yammering about his weirdo Twitter ramblings than discussing how he's going to be in the White House making private business deals with foreign governments.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by AcGold

If I post evidence of my credentials as well as documented dissertations proving how correct I am how much will you pay me? Let's start taking wagers here, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you're all just a waste of time. I'll put up $1000. You guys want to attack me with your group tactics well I'm willing to put money on the line and we'll see who is right and who is wrong. Try to turn the tide with your rhetoric groupthink, well, let's see how that stands up to the test.

$1000 that I have multiple degrees and that buzzwords were developed scientifically by thinktanks. Any takers or you all talk?

And if you're wrong, completely wrong, what does that make you? What will that say about CP? Anyone willing to wager can message me.

Dude, it's not that you're wrong about how buzzwords were developed, nor even that you have two degrees, it's about the following:

1. Undergraduate degrees are not impressive. I have two of them too. An undergrad - particularly one which is from a field you're not working in - is pretty much the same thing as having read twenty books on a subject. It makes you someone who's opinion should be listened to, but not a source of authority.

2. You're wrong about the term fakenews. A good example of a carefully crafted 'buzzword' being used to mislead or obfuscate, particularly in the realm of politics, would be something like School Choice or Pro-Life. Fakenews, on the other hand is a term which has developed organically as a response to an observed phenomenon as opposed to a term purpose-built to mislead or obscure. The meaning of 'fakenews' is plain within the term itself, it's useful, and it does nothing to prevent or shut down debate. I would even aruge that it invites debate, discussion, and investigation. The existence of fakenews, the possibility of being accused of distributing or promoting fakenews should - I hope - encourage people to double-check sources, and do exactly the thing you're claiming the term prevents: think critically about what they're reading.

3. You're being a prat. Maybe you were shocked your previous post about your GeoScience degree was so easily found. The reason I was able to find it so easily was I remembered your issues from the Layoffs thread as I found them genuinely touching and I really hope your job issues have been resolved. I know what it's like to change career paths completely as an adult.

However, maybe it's coming from anger or shock from being called out, but I think it started earlier than my post about your other degree, but what's coming across is that one time during your first undergrad you wrote a 10,000 word term paper for your Psych 304 class on the development of buzzwords and, for whatever reason, your thesis has really stuck with you. You have paid attention to words your think are 'buzzwords' and notice when they get used - this is in no way a bad thing in itself.
But now you've run into this topic on this forum and, with obvious relish, are rehashing that Psych 304 thesis thinking there is some kind of valuable insight which is being missed or not understood by the rest of us, and your insistence on throwing the entirety of the thesaurus into your posts is actually working against the exact point you're trying to make: that buzzwords (important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen) prevent critical thinking.

We all know it's possible to use language to prevent critical thinking. We've all read 1984. We've all been to horrendous meetings discussing synergy and actionable data. Anyone commenting in this thread will have watched at least a few White House press conferences and we are all intimately familiar with how politicians (and athletes) are experts at saying nothing while seeming to say something.

You're not adding anything to the discussion in this thread about the very real existence of outlets disseminating false information, a President-Elect many consider dangerously inept, and the day-to-day events of politics in the US.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by AcGold

If I post evidence of my credentials as well as documented dissertations proving how correct I am how much will you pay me? Let's start taking wagers here, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you're all just a waste of time. I'll put up $1000. You guys want to attack me with your group tactics well I'm willing to put money on the line and we'll see who is right and who is wrong. Try to turn the tide with your rhetoric groupthink, well, let's see how that stands up to the test.

$1000 that I have multiple degrees and that buzzwords were developed scientifically by thinktanks. Any takers or you all talk?

And if you're wrong, completely wrong, what does that make you? What will that say about CP? Anyone willing to wager can message me.

What is wrong with you that you are unable to engage in an actual conversation, let alone a debate. You sound like a nut-job.

Edit: Back on track, every single time I open up Trump's twitter feed I shake my head and I can't determine if his tweeting of #CorruptHillary is an act of if he really is the least diplomatic president that I can recall. The guy won the election and I get the sense that he isn't happy about it because people are not all grovelling at his feet begging to be let into the castle. He is the most polarizing figure in politics and I still view him as more of a joke than a politician.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Would you have the same response if Trump had claimed that the popular vote was falsified because Martians tampered with the voting machines?

If someone's just saying things that have no shred of reality to them it's not unfair to call them false. Trump has no regard for the truth whatsoever, anyway. That was probably the most accurate part of Oliver's takedown of him during the primaries.

I'd probably be much more apt to dismiss it out if hand, but like it or not, this person is now the President and comes with a certain authority over truth to a large number of people. This type of behavior from media outlets, playing fast and loose with the truth is why Trump is able to turn his supporters against them so easily. Trump's tweet isn't "that" far out there either. It's probably not reality, but it definitely isn't aliens.

I'll say it again, opinion based journalism masquerading as truth authorities is part of the reason why the US is in this mess.

On another note, I was just thinking, if Donald Trump says the same thing you are suggesting 2 years into his presidency, can we dismiss it out of hand so easily? I mean, Jimmy Carter said that if he was elected, he would release everything they had on extraterrestrial life, but declined after being elected because of the national security risk. Just saying .

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The article title is "Donald Trump falsely claims "millions of people who voted illegally' cost him the popular vote. Once the writer decided on that sort of title, they assumed authority over the validity of the claim and made their own assertion that the claim was indeed false.

A more truthful title would be "Donald Trump claims voter fraud: No evidence provided". Just because a claim is made doesn't automatically make it false with an absence of evidence.

In general you can't prove a negative, so saying that a claim is false if there isn't positive evidence would be the reasonable position. If Trump had claimed something didn't happen and the reporter said the claim was false but didn't provide evidence it did happen then I'd definitely agree.

Other outlets have used wording more like you suggest in their reporting (CNN just happened to be the one Trump picked, I don't think it's because of the semantics used in the title), but Trump is still asking for proof that something didn't happen.

I think the media also has a responsibility to highlight when Trump lies or bases his opinions on made up facts like this. There's never been a president or maybe even politician who uses social media like this and had a following and impact like this. It's like state propaganda, it's not going to different when it's soldier's deaths or economic reports that he's tweeting about.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Trump's tweet isn't "that" far out there either. It's probably not reality, but it definitely isn't aliens.

It's close, how does an illegal immigrant go about registering to vote in the first place? On a scale of millions without anyone noticing, all of them risking deportation. It's pretty far along the scale of extraordinary in terms of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[GGG]

I believe trumps arguments is in fact Aliens voted for clinton

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

It's close, how does an illegal immigrant go about registering to vote in the first place?

Illegals are allowed to get a drivers license (called a driver authorization card), combine that with a bogus SSN (VERY easy to obtain) you can then register to vote.

[Ice]

You just need to give a name and address at the polling place to vote. No proof of residency or ID is required. I could have voted again just providing my neighbor's name and address. I'd be OK showing my ID in order to vote.

[Senator Clay Davis]

At this point Trump compromising national security through Twitter is probably off the board in Vegas. Can't someone in his inner circle just change his password and lock him out?

[zamler]

When I was a contractor in Sussex County the amount of illegals in the trades had to have been 90%. Some had "legal" papers some had nothing either way they voted. I don't think the illegal vote numbers are as high as Trump is saying but easily could be 1 million.

Either way it doesn't matter the whole recount thing is a total scam. Also it is much more credible to say that illegals voted than some mysterious hacks took place there is zero evidence to support this. And even if there was then why only request a recount in states Trump won. The whole thing is a money grab and an attempt to throw shade on the election results.

[Street Pharmacist]

How would these illegals vote? Where would they be registered?

[ResAlien]

Just a reminder: Large scale voter fraud is a myth

“The truth is, though, that not only does zero evidence exist that this sort of fraud has taken place on any regular basis, but multiple voting simply cannot happen in any practical sense on a scale to influence a presidential election,” Hasen wrote. “To vote five, 10, or 15 times one would have to either register five, 10, or 15 times in different jurisdictions or with false names or go five, 10, or 15 times to polling places claiming to be someone else whose name is on the voter rolls, in the hopes that this person has not already voted and you would not get caught. And to do this on a scale for a presidential election, in a place such as Pennsylvania with millions of voters, you would need to pay tens of thousands of people, all without any way of verifying how they voted.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/tru...-fraud-claims/

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by zamler

Illegals are allowed to get a drivers license (called a driver authorization card), combine that with a bogus SSN (VERY easy to obtain) you can then register to vote.

You cannot register to vote with those type of licenses. In fact, they can never be used at all as photo ID; they're strictly a permit to drive. And I'm not sure how you think someone could use a bogus SSN to register to vote.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Ice

You just need to give a name and address at the polling place to vote. No proof of residency or ID is required. I could have voted again just providing my neighbor's name and address. I'd be OK showing my ID in order to vote.

We had this debate maybe 30 pages ago. People don't have ID.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ice

You just need to give a name and address at the polling place to vote. No proof of residency or ID is required. I could have voted again just providing my neighbor's name and address. I'd be OK showing my ID in order to vote.

But you had to register first, correct? And how would you do that if you're not in the database?

[photon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You cannot register to vote with those type of licenses. In fact, they can never be used at all as photo ID; they're strictly a permit to drive.

And most of them say right on them that they can't be used as identification.



http://immigration.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=005535

[ResAlien]

Don't forget that this baseless allegation of voter fraud is solely a Democrat issue. All voter fraud leads to Democrat votes because...well I'm not sure why but it does. Definitely not because we accuse poor illegals of being the ones commiting voter fraud. Us against them, keep driving the narrative. It's more of the same from Trump and his base eats it up.

But they're not saying it definitely happens they're just asking questions. You have to look at it from every angle and really examine it, y'know? But a lot of people are saying it's a really big issue here. Huge issue. Probably the biggest issue we have in our voting process today.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by photon

And most of them say right on them that they can't be used as identification.

Have you ever looked at a social security card?

[puffnstuff]

Do the 'illegals are voting' folks not understand that if I'm an illegal immigrant, the last place I would want to go and present myself for scrutiny is a government office/polling place?

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Edit: Back on track, every single time I open up Trump's twitter feed I shake my head and I can't determine if his tweeting of #CorruptHillary is an act of if he really is the least diplomatic president that I can recall. The guy won the election and I get the sense that he isn't happy about it because people are not all grovelling at his feet begging to be let into the castle. He is the most polarizing figure in politics and I still view him as more of a joke than a politician.

I'm pretty certain the entire world views him as a joke. The only people who take this assclown even remotely seriously are the suckers who voted for him, and even they're getting annoyed now due to his flip-flopping on campaign promises. Barring impeachment or him stepping down, we're unfortunately stuck with this idiot for the foreseeable future. But considering his childish temperament and complete lack of qualifications, knowledge, and experience, I'll be surprised if he even lasts 2 years.

I get the sense that he never actually wanted this job. He was just drunk on the idea of having the title and the power. He's not even in office yet and you can tell the pressure and constant criticism is clearly getting to him. We think he's acting childish and stupid now? Just wait until he actually has to do the job. It's gonna be a gong show.