RE: Who would be a better president? Sean Penn vs Ted Cruz5th August 2016, 13:31 (This post was last modified: 5th August 2016, 13:32 by CapnAwesome. )
(4th August 2016, 03:11)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(4th August 2016, 02:06)CapnAwesome Wrote: There is no evidence for the claim. You are basically saying that it's credible because you don't like Trump or it seems like something that he would say. That's just not the way I look at evidence, regardless of the fact I don't like Trump either. An unnamed source months later? Why is this only brought up after the Clinton campaign makes nuclear weapons an issue? Nobody should take that seriously.
So you don't think that a Presidential candidate should think about nuclear weapons usage? You don't think a candidate should have to bear the burden of running his mouth?
Listen, if you spent six months bragging to me about how badass you are, even as your sails are shown to be empty, if I later hear that you were ignorant of the actual issues at hand, who should I trust? You, who have spent six months spinning fabrications, or a source I can actually vet?
You're not giving him the benefit of the doubt, you're giving him the benefit of the mouth. I've heard nothing, not a single word, that indicates he's a thoughtful person, and now you want me to extend consideration? Sorry, that ain't happening. Credibility is earnt, and it seems I have higher standards than you in that regard.
I'm saying that I've heard Trump say so many stupid things that one more piece of idiocy which can be fact-checked doesn't merit my effort in so doing, because I already know he's a cunt.
If you haven't figured that out already, just say what it is that's confuzzling you about him. I'll be happy to clear things up, and provide the facts that put his alleged comment in context.
It's that whole "first impressions are lasting impressions" thing -- except with Trump, it's also the second, fourth, seventh, nineteenth, twenty-seventh impression ... fourty-fourth, eighty-sixth ... shall I go on?
I don't care if he said what is alleged, because I already know he's appealing to the lowest common denominator. He's painted himself with his own colors ... why are you crying about him not being seen clearly?
I believe Scarborough more than I believe Trump -- or you, for that matter. Trump has been shown to lie about things, and while you're a good guy here, I don't know you from a can of paint ... and I doubt you've got sources as good as Scarborough's.
Well Trump is thinking about it, apparently asking a foreign policy expert about the use of nuclear weapons. Isn't that what you would want him to do rather then not ask questions about a subject he knows little about?
But the problem with your line of thinking is that it opens you up to automatically believing anything negative that's said about Trump, regardless of the validity of the source. Yeah, I don't have sources as good as Scarborough. I'm also not trying to present new information to the public so I don't need sources. If this is valid, why is Scarborough waiting until it's a talking point of the Hillary campaign? Why doesn't he name this source or anything about them, any specific dates, really any information that can collaborate what's being said. 0. So there is no reason to believe what he says, or at least no evidence of it. All you have is the word of a single person who hates Trump. We would never accept that as evidence from any Theist on these boards.
How many times, as Atheists, do we say that we don't believe in God because we need evidence to support claims. Well this is just a claim with no evidence. You can't say you believe it because you don't like Trump. I don't like Trump either, but it doesn't cause me to believe everything that is said about him. If Scarborough or anyone else brings some evidence to bear on the subject, I'm open to changing my mind.