Random Arguments & Strawmen #15 |
||
|
Random Arguments & Strawmen #15
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Nah you're just a racist in general man... lol ^^. It has nothing to do with obama... I really don't think he's racist at all. I do think he's got blinders when it comes to the lives of poor people and how/why they become/stay that way, and I think with the amount of poor black people in an urban setting in our country it is easily mistaken for racism. His problem isn't the color of skin or ethnicity. His problem is one of economic class.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Nah you're just a racist in general man... lol ^^. It has nothing to do with obama... I really don't think he's racist at all. I do think he's got blinders when it comes to the lives of poor people and how/why they become/stay that way, and I think with the amount of poor black people in an urban setting in our country it is easily mistaken for racism. His problem isn't the color of skin or ethnicity. His problem is one of economic class. There is something to be said for the latter perpetuating people's perception of the former, however. They're intertwined issues. Money is power. Keeping poor people divided helps maintain money in the upper echelons. Poor people being divided along lines of race is beneficial to those in power. Democrats included. Why do you think they're so focused on race? Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » He passed the torch of his main business to his children. He is effectively retired in business now. Now you are saying that he should also cut ties with them too, for "conflict of interest" concerns? Yes? That wouldn't be a qualified blind trust either. QBT = the trustee must not be affiliated with, associated with, related to, or subject to the control or influence of the grantor (the political official). The trustee should not be a current or former investment advisor, partner, accountant, attorney, or relative. Which means the sometime in the near future Trump will probably wage a Twitter war with the ethics committee when his QBT comes under review for approval.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » He passed the torch of his main business to his children. He is effectively retired in business now. Now you are saying that he should also cut ties with them too, for "conflict of interest" concerns? Yes? That wouldn't be a qualified blind trust either. QBT = the trustee must not be affiliated with, associated with, related to, or subject to the control or influence of the grantor (the political official). The trustee should not be a current or former investment advisor, partner, accountant, attorney, or relative. Which means the sometime in the near future Trump will probably wage a Twitter war with the ethics committee when his QBT comes under review for approval. Better response. Sorry. My point was, he has to do everything he can to divorce himself from any conscious concern with his assets that would cause a conflict of interest. ...weighing in on the Dakota pipeline, for instance.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Nah you're just a racist in general man... lol ^^. It has nothing to do with obama... I really don't think he's racist at all. I do think he's got blinders when it comes to the lives of poor people and how/why they become/stay that way, and I think with the amount of poor black people in an urban setting in our country it is easily mistaken for racism. His problem isn't the color of skin or ethnicity. His problem is one of economic class.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » It's more of a mocking sentiment because he always brings it up and *** about it... /sigh Well it's easier to defend, hence injecting it into the discussion.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: You forgot to say that I'm racist because Obama's black, even though I'm not racist. Name-calling from Flavin. What a surprise.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » ...weighing in on the Dakota pipeline, for instance. To be fair, this is a bit of a rumor. I'm pretty sure he sold his shares and his shares in that company were rather meager. There is also evidence that him having shares doesn't correlate with his ability to criticize them. Snopes has a good article here: http://www.snopes.com/does-donald-trump-own-a-stake-in-the-dakota-access-pipeline/ Ramyrez said: » Well it's easier to defend, hence injecting it into the discussion. It is nothing more than a straw man. eliroo said: » Ramyrez said: » ...weighing in on the Dakota pipeline, for instance. To be fair, this is a bit of a rumor. I'm pretty sure he sold his shares and his shares in that company were rather meager. Snopes has a good article here: http://www.snopes.com/does-donald-trump-own-a-stake-in-the-dakota-access-pipeline/ Noted. Quote: There is also evidence that him having shares doesn't correlate with his ability to criticize them. Still not acceptable. Must be entirely divorced from these things, the perception of something even inaccurate is every bit as damaging to your goals as actually doing it. He's in politics now. That's the name of the game. And he knows this very well and used it to good advantage against his opponents while running.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Still not acceptable. Agreeable, but I'm positive his position wouldn't have changed with or without stakes in it. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Idk... you were pretty hardcore in your pay to play accusations with Clinton and her conflicts of interest with the Clinton foundation and now you seem to think Trump is free from any conflicts even though his children running the business are close to him, will be spending plenty of time there and supposedly are lobbying for specific clearances... This isn't Minority Report, we cannot accuse wrongdoing if it hasn't had a chance of happening yet. If it were to happen, then yes, we can do something about it. Ramyrez said: » I just wanted to use it correctly, as an example for those who throw it around during every argument without understanding what it is. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Idk... you were pretty hardcore in your pay to play accusations with Clinton and her conflicts of interest with the Clinton foundation and now you seem to think Trump is free from any conflicts even though his children running the business are close to him, will be spending plenty of time there and supposedly are lobbying for specific clearances... This isn't Minority Report, we cannot accuse wrongdoing if it hasn't had a chance of happening yet. If it were to happen, then yes, we can do something about it. Actually, in this instance, we can. He must go out of his way to avoid conflicts of interest in relation to his business concerns. Otherwise he cannot be considered to be acting in the best interest of the country rather than for himself, which was always a HUGE concern with a man like him in the first place. Ramyrez said: » It's actually a red-herring. Some other ones you'll see a lot are appeal to accomplishment, appeal to authority, retrospective determinism, definist fallacy and tone policing.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » You forgot to say that I'm racist because Obama's black, even though I'm not racist. Never crossed my mind. Stop trying to set up a flippant defense you don't even need. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » You forgot to say that I'm racist because Obama's black, even though I'm not racist. Never crossed my mind. Stop trying to set up a flippant defense you don't even need. I don't see that's what I said at all. I see that I said there's a lot of bitterness in your words while you call people racists. Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Idk... you were pretty hardcore in your pay to play accusations with Clinton and her conflicts of interest with the Clinton foundation and now you seem to think Trump is free from any conflicts even though his children running the business are close to him, will be spending plenty of time there and supposedly are lobbying for specific clearances... This isn't Minority Report, we cannot accuse wrongdoing if it hasn't had a chance of happening yet. If it were to happen, then yes, we can do something about it. Actually, in this instance, we can. He must go out of his way to avoid conflicts of interest in relation to his business concerns. Otherwise he cannot be considered to be acting in the best interest of the country rather than for himself, which was always a HUGE concern with a man like him in the first place. My question is: Would you ask Trump to do something you yourself are unprepared to do? If you demand Trump to do more than what is legally required for him to do, then why don't you do it to yourself first? Asura.Kingnobody said: » He did as much as any human being could. The only thing left for him would be to completely disavow and disconnect with his family. My question is: Would you ask Trump to do something you yourself are unprepared to do? If you demand Trump to do more than what is legally required for him to do, then why don't you do it to yourself first? Because I'm not becoming POTUS? Your false equivalence is off the charts.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » It's actually a red-herring. I would argue it could be both. He created the racist accusation as an argument to discredit his opponent. But I also agree that it could be classified as a red herring. A fallacy, regardless. But it is really hard to argue without using a single fallacy. Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » He did as much as any human being could. The only thing left for him would be to completely disavow and disconnect with his family. My question is: Would you ask Trump to do something you yourself are unprepared to do? If you demand Trump to do more than what is legally required for him to do, then why don't you do it to yourself first? Because I'm not becoming POTUS? Your false equivalence is off the charts. That is to say, I'm asking him to do what any other presidents have done, for the good of the country, which is now his entire and only purpose for the next four years at least. Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » He did as much as any human being could. The only thing left for him would be to completely disavow and disconnect with his family. My question is: Would you ask Trump to do something you yourself are unprepared to do? If you demand Trump to do more than what is legally required for him to do, then why don't you do it to yourself first? Because I'm not becoming POTUS? Your false equivalence is off the charts. Kindof like a reverse of "Do unto others how you yourself want done upon you." You're seriously separating the issue by degrees. It's not a bad tack, but it's getting away from the point.
I do actually separate my personal life from work, actually. But I don't run the country and I don't have millions-to-billions (or even a few dollars) invested in my work-related decisions. Ramyrez said: » You're seriously separating the issue by degrees. It's not a bad tack, but it's getting away from the point. I do actually separate my personal life from work, actually. But I don't run the country and I don't have millions-to-billions (or even a few dollars) invested in my work-related decisions. -actually, actually. (actually).
[+]
Fine, I get it.
You will never be important enough to actually separate your entire family life and immerse yourself in work 24/7 like the PotUS should do. Didn't stop Obama from doing so, but then again, he wasn't a great leader either. Either way, you are demanding total separation, which you never stated one word of it for Obama, or even hinted at it when Clinton was running. Nope, it has to be Trump, and only Trump, that should do it. Got it! Ramyrez said: » Ramyrez said: » You're seriously separating the issue by degrees. It's not a bad tack, but it's getting away from the point. I do actually separate my personal life from work, actually. But I don't run the country and I don't have millions-to-billions (or even a few dollars) invested in my work-related decisions. -actually, actually. (actually).  The horror of the President separating himself from all of his businesses so he can make decisions that benefit all of America and not just his shady businesses. Its not about enriching himself after all.
[+]
Let's be real, here. Trump isn't a politician that became a bigger politician. He's a businessman that became president, and his business is strongly tied to his family. It's not like he can shut off his presidency whenever he's around his kids. There will never be a 100% removal of conflicts of interest because practically any interaction with his kids or any legislation that gets passed that affects his business in any way could be viewed as such. It's a field of gray, but it all comes down to that beautiful (and awful) word: "intent".
[+]
|
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
