Donald Trump praises Saddam Hussein's ability to commit crimes against humanity - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50697647]Remember kids if you're the loudest person in a debate that makes you the best.[/QUOTE] Don't forget to insult your opponents without addressing their points!

If you consider a good debater someone who is able to convince the public to side with them then yes, Donald Trump is a good debater, but he isn't very good at the art of debate, which might hurt him in general election debates. During the Republican ones he knows the crowd he is pandering to and that means staying above the policy arguments. He stuck to character arguments. Any time it came to topics about specific things like the economy or defense, Cruz and even occasionally Rubio or Kasich ran circles around him. He isn't good at defending his position, he is good at exploiting the optimism or ignorance of other people that his positions are achieveable, and that they will lead to only good consequences. It's populism, and it's the same sort of wave Sanders enjoyed, but Sanders was simultaenously much better on policy and at debates than Trump was. He also capitalized on the debate format having strict time limits which fits into his speech style during this election, where he essentially just talks about how great he is and how great his ideas are and just repeats until times up. So no I really wouldn't call him a good debater despite winning the Republican debates pretty handily. He is a populist who circumvents the hard work of debate with ad hominem attack, character assassination, and general mudflinging. The thing Trump supporters have to worry about is his strategy being viable in the general election. I think he is going to have a harder time here.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50697691]If you consider a good debater someone who is able to convince the public to side with them then yes, Donald Trump is a good debater, but he isn't very good at the art of debate, which might hurt him in general election debates. During the Republican ones he knows the crowd he is pandering to and that means staying above the policy arguments. He stuck to character arguments. Any time it came to topics about specific things like the economy or defense, Cruz and even occasionally Rubio or Kasich ran circles around him. He isn't good at defending his position, he is good at exploiting the optimism or ignorance of other people that his positions are achieveable, and that they will lead to only good consequences. It's populism, and it's the same sort of wave Sanders enjoyed, but Sanders was simultaenously much better on policy and at debates than Trump was. He also capitalized on the debate format having strict time limits which fits into his speech style during this election, where he essentially just talks about how great he is and how great his ideas are and just repeats until times up. So no I really wouldn't call him a good debater despite winning the Republican debates pretty handily. He is a populist who circumvents the hard work of debate with ad hominem attack, character assassination, and general mudflinging. The thing Trump supporters have to worry about is his strategy being viable in the general election. I think he is going to have a harder time here.[/QUOTE] Donald Trump knows his audience and plays on their fears to get their support while alienating himself from everyone that doesn't think like he does. There's no skill in what he does and he has no chance of winning the election. While Clinton isn't perfect she can get through a speech without outraging thousands of people, something Trump is incapable of. Trump appeals to poorly educated white men, which is enough to win the republican nomination but not the presidency.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50697543]You seem to be operating under the assumption that voters are intelligent, rational beings that can't be swayed by populist rhetoric.[/QUOTE] I'm not assuming anything, the point is to get people to vote for you, if populista rethoric works, he got his goal. The point is to get the majority on board, just because you think his argumenta weren't sound or had any substance is meaningless if the majority got on board. The quality of his argument is going to vary from person to person, at the end of he day the number of support he gets translate into the sucess of his debate and given that he is close to Clinton saying he wasn't good in the debates is pure denial.

[QUOTE=Psyke89;50699409]I'm not assuming anything, the point is to get people to vote for you, if populista rethoric works, he got his goal. The point is to get the majority on board, just because you think his argumenta weren't sound or had any substance is meaningless if the majority got on board. The quality of his argument is going to vary from person to person, at the end of he day the number of support he gets translate into the sucess of his debate and given that he is close to Clinton saying he wasn't good in the debates is pure denial.[/QUOTE] The only reason he's gotten this many "wins" with his debates is because of the embarrassingly lax rules he's been operating under, which let him yell whatever barely coherent bullshit and outright lies that he wants. But that's going to change.

I think everyone has to stop assuming that Trump won because of the debates alone. There were 16 candidates, a good portion of them simply did not get as much funding as they needed to continue debate winning or not. Plus Trump's more famous tirades were his speeches, not the debate. The ones where he called Mexicans rapists and said the government should completely ban Muslims from entering the US. Did you not notice that when it got down to just a handful of GOP running that Trump refused to go to debates?

There are significant spikes in the polls after the GOP debates in his favor, yes he "won" voters in the debates. He only missed 1 GOP debate, in January.

"Trump said something controversial. How do we put it into the worst possible context ignoring all logic and reason to make him look bad? "

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50703442]"Trump said something controversial. How do we put it into the worst possible context ignoring all logic and reason to make him look bad? "[/QUOTE] You take a screenshot of his tweets and don't edit them [editline]13th July 2016[/editline] case in point: [img]http://i.imgur.com/vCc2IX0.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Zyler;50661882]Well he's praising his ability to kill terrorists. Which means he is praising the barbaric and inhumane methods he used to kill terrorists. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] "Ice Cream is great, but I don't think Ice Cream is good." "Saddam's methods of killing terrorists was great, but I don't think Saddam's methods of killing terrorists is a good idea."[/QUOTE] uhhhhhhh nah not really, the analogy would be better if it were: "vanilla ice cream is probably the best flavor of ice cream, but i'm not a big fan of ice cream"

[QUOTE=Psyke89;50703125]There are significant spikes in the polls after the GOP debates in his favor, yes he "won" voters in the debates. He only missed 1 GOP debate, in January.[/QUOTE] Do you not recall when he outright said we cannot and should not have anymore debates once it got down to 3 or 4 candidates?

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50703442]"Trump said something controversial. How do we put it into the worst possible context ignoring all logic and reason to make him look bad? "[/QUOTE] Controversial? the man is downright unstable, and doesn't seem to understand the consequences his actions might have, never mind his policies if they get implemented. Neither does his vote bank understand that his policies will only damage them the most and leave them worse off than they already are. As Sobotnik already posted, the evidence is there for all to see that voting for this man is a bad idea. Unfortunately, his vote bank are unaware of, or are unwilling to understand, what his policies will do at large to both the country and to their own lives, and dismiss any criticisms made of him and his policies as 'propaganda or manufactured lies.' I understand their need for believing in something, but it's on par with still thinking the earth is flat in this day and age. Trump supporters have every right to support their chosen candidate, but other people have the right to criticize them for following an individual like him. We have legitimate criticisms nobody on Trump's side has ever addressed even on FP besides repeating his canned rhetoric about how he'll 'make this nation great again.' If you're going to be ignorant enough to fall for rhetoric without examining the evidence for yourself why voting for him will leave the country even more badly off than it already is (and it's hardly badly off right now, is it?) then others have the right to criticize you for making an essentially uninformed decision.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50706517]Do you not recall when he outright said we cannot and should not have anymore debates once it got down to 3 or 4 candidates?[/QUOTE] So? He was in 2 debates with 3 candidates and 1 with 4 candidates, what are you trying to imply with that?

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50695406]Or maybe he actually is a dumbass who basically inherited his status and empire from his dad and has no clue how foreign policy or counter terrorism work.[/QUOTE] One million dollars into a multi billion dollar empire. I'd like to see the day when a lotto winner becomes a billionaire who's not already a successful business man.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;50708927]One million dollars* into a multi billion dollar empire. I'd like to see the day when a lotto winner becomes a billionaire who's not already a successful business man.[/QUOTE] $6.8m and a fully established and profitable property development company*

There would've been no meaningful difference to his net worth if he'd simply let the money sit in an investment portfolio.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50706819]Controversial? the man is downright unstable, and doesn't seem to understand the consequences his actions might have, never mind his policies if they get implemented. Neither does his vote bank understand that his policies will only damage them the most and leave them worse off than they already are. As Sobotnik already posted, the evidence is there for all to see that voting for this man is a bad idea. Unfortunately, his vote bank are unaware of, or are unwilling to understand, what his policies will do at large to both the country and to their own lives, and dismiss any criticisms made of him and his policies as 'propaganda or manufactured lies.' I understand their need for believing in something, but it's on par with still thinking the earth is flat in this day and age. Trump supporters have every right to support their chosen candidate, but other people have the right to criticize them for following an individual like him. We have legitimate criticisms nobody on Trump's side has ever addressed even on FP besides repeating his canned rhetoric about how he'll 'make this nation great again.' If you're going to be ignorant enough to fall for rhetoric without examining the evidence for yourself why voting for him will leave the country even more badly off than it already is (and it's hardly badly off right now, is it?) then others have the right to criticize you for making an essentially uninformed decision.[/QUOTE] No, I completely understand everything voting for him entails. I understand his position on things. And if the tweets are the best ammunition you have against Trump (Not you, the other guy), that's pretty god damn sad. First. Those tweets are from 2012, 2014, and 2012 again. They are OLD. His official stances are different. If you take his personal opinions into account, rather than his official stances, then you should also take into account Hillary's [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/18/uselections2000.usa[/url] [quote]A book out today claims that 26 years ago she called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "fucking Jew bastard". Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."[/quote] I've just compared him to the alternative and find him the lesser of the two evils. [editline]15th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50709065]$6.8m and a fully established and profitable property development company*[/QUOTE] That's fucking nothing compared to what he has now. You didn't actually address the point you replied to, which was that lotto winners don't just start becoming billionaires because they suddenly have money. Anybody who says Trump is a bad businessman is, quite frankly, an idiot.

Does Trump realised that there was no terrorism in Iraq back when Saddam Hussein was in power. Does he realised that the US invasion of Iraq and dispossal of Saddam's government led to the creation of DAESH/ISIS? Does Trump even remembered that he actually support the invasion of Iraq in the first place? I swear Donald Trump would be the primary cause of World War 3 if he end up becoming the US president.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50697647]Remember kids if you're the loudest person in a debate that makes you the best.[/QUOTE] Well I mean he's polling [I]really well[/I]. It evidently does work.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50712033]No, I completely understand everything voting for him entails. I understand his position on things. And if the tweets are the best ammunition you have against Trump (Not you, the other guy), that's pretty god damn sad. First. Those tweets are from 2012, 2014, and 2012 again. They are OLD. His official stances are different. If you take his personal opinions into account, rather than his official stances, then you should also take into account Hillary's [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/18/uselections2000.usa[/URL] I've just compared him to the alternative and find him the lesser of the two evils. [editline]15th July 2016[/editline] That's fucking nothing compared to what he has now. You didn't actually address the point you replied to, which was that lotto winners don't just start becoming billionaires because they suddenly have money. Anybody who says Trump is a bad businessman is, quite frankly, an idiot.[/QUOTE] Why is it a good idea having somebody who believes that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy as President of the United States? Or likewise, what about his crazy replacement for the affordable care act which will leave millions of Americans out in the cold without health insurance, and make it more expensive overall for people to have it? Most of the propositions he made will put the country trillions of dollars into the debt hole than it already is in, and even better, ensure that there's even less money and jobs to go around. The problem is he has no strict idea of what his positions are even going to be - he changes them around as and when it suits him and tries to downplay every other gaffe that comes out of his mouth. He literally caused a diplomatic incident by comparing Russia to ISIS. His debate tactics essentially boil down to 'say whatever makes my vote bank happy/gathers more support' with little more substance to them. He is a circus clown who wasn't even taken seriously as a candidate by his own party when the preliminaries started - he had negative approval from within it, to date the only candidate who ever had such negative approval iirc. His campaign blew up so much because of all the attention the media paid to him and his support group - and also for the fact that people are uninformed enough to believe his promises. Appeals to emotion don't give any guarantee that your candidate is good material for leadership.

Why is it a good idea to have a president who multiple people have attested, hates black people and jews? I can pull out terrible things Hillary believes in too, Zone. She has colluded with the DNC to ensure another candidate would not be nominated when they would have without that collusion and I'm worried where else those thorns will go when she becomes president. You say "Whatever makes his vote bank happy" but I fail to see how that distinguishes Trump from any other political candidate, and I don't see why you're using negative approval within the republican party as evidence of... something? Like party affiliation somehow makes a candidate better? Hillary does exactly the same thing. Whatever she can say to get support, she will say. Hell, Obama wrote that about her. You're doing a damn fine job of just ignoring every other political candidate in the election when talking about Trump. Considering both he AND hillary would have the record for lowest approval ratings in history, and highest voter turnout in the primaries in history, the discussion of a candidate cannot happen in a vacuum. Like seriously you read like a satire. Like you think the things you say apply to only Trump, no other politician. Only Trump lies, only Trump changes his position, only Trump gaffes, only Trump says or believes anything controversial, only Trump has negative approval, only Trump uses appeals to emotion instead of logic or reason. I'm sorry to ruin your idealistic fantasy, but if you honestly believe that Trump is the only one who does those things, you shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine or whatever it is you do. The reason I support Trump in this election is if he's a clown, Hillary is fucking Baba Yaga. Believe me, I'd love it if something miraculous happened at the DNC and Warren or Sanders became the nominee, but I don't see it happening. It's honestly hard to imagine a candidate I wouldn't vote for over the other two, but if it's got to be one I'm going with Trump.