Trump reorganizes his campaign organization....

[mudwhistle]

Isn't this the second time he's done this?

The fact that he has replaced people is a very big red flag that he knows his campaign is in trouble.

How many restarts has he had now?

How many times have we been told he's going to start acting presidential?

This trump campaign is a total mess and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.

Bringing in people whose only job is to slash and burn won't work. Especially since one is from britebart and the other is from fox news.

Bringing in a man who had to resign in shame because women are coming out of the woodwork telling how they were sexually harassed by him isn't a good thing.

You're just spreading rumors.

The fact that someone makes changes isn't the red-light you claim it to be. If someone isn't doing their job, you fire them. Simple as that.

Remember how many times Hillary tried to redefine herself?

Guess not.

Somebody just decided that Hillary has to try to pass herself off as being something she's not. The only thing they needed to do was talk shit about Trump 24/7, and keep Hillary out of the spotlight. Trash Trump and lie about him. Hide Hillary.

They hope it works.

How many times did Al Gore restart his campaign?

How many "make overs" did Al Gore have?

How did that work out for him?

The same thing will happen with trump.

Al Gore lost because he was an asshole. Hillary will lose for the same reason.

While I don't disagree with your assessment or Hillary or Gore, how does Trump not fit into that category as well?

Comparing Trump to those assholes isn't honest. Hillary is corrupt, dishonest, and pretty much only thinks of herself. Gore was similar. Trump obviously loves his family and his family loves him. That should tell you something about him, but most libs can't seem to understand the importance of family.

 

[mudwhistle]

Al Gore lost because of our Electoral College System.

He couldn't even win his own state, so what does that tell you about him?

That he resonated with voters nationwide better than with hillbillies.

Hillbillies are from West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky. The problem with Al Gore is he was a closet gay who spent all of his time blowing interns in Washington. I live in TN. We never liked the prick. He and his mustache for a wife always tried to act all holy and wouldn't let us have porn on television. We could see right thru the hypocrisy.

Yet voters across the land preferred him to George Bush. Credit the collective wisdom of the electorate and the danger of the Electoral College system.

Bullshit
Democrats just have a better ground game.

What is a ground game?

Democrats vote as many times as they can get away with.
Democrats go vote farming at rest homes and cemeteries.
They cheat better than Republicans.
They encourage illegals to come to America and then bus them all over battleground states voting over and over.

 

[320 Years of History]

...And this morning, the Trump campaign spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, is actually trying to convince people that the reorg is "not a shake up" but rather "an expansion." LOL

See that's a key trait of the Trump campaign and Trump: it/he condescends to people to the extent that it's downright insulting to people's intelligence to try to get them to believe the things it/he says.

Baghdad Bob Pierson is the least believable player in the entire presidential campaign.

I hope old man Trump got a few good ***** out of her because he certainly isn't getting anything else for his money.

Funny you would say that. Coming from a supporter of a dishonest candidate that is often compared to Baghdad Bob.


- Baghdad Bob and Hillary ? Strange Bedfellows

Once again he tries to defend Trump by showing how much Trump is like Hillary Clinton.

I really cannot explain it. I've never before joining this forum come across so many folks who will at the drop of a hat and in all seriousness invoke a flavor of a moral equivalence -- for example, relative privation -- argument/rebuttal for their/against others' position(s).

It's downright bizarre to see so many people use that fallacious line of rebuttal/argument for it signals unavoidably that the speaker has internalized the remarks that inspired them to invoke that line of argument. It signals a pretty high degree of insecurity and ineptitude. For example:

Original Assertion/Argument:

• Billy demonstrates trait A, therefore he is worthy/unworthy of "whatever."

Moral Equivalence Responses/Rebuttal examples:

• What about Mark? He demonstrates trait A in triplicate. He's even less/more worthy.
• Well, Mark displays trait A and trait B, which is worse/better, so I'll go with Billy instead any day.

Retorts like that necessarily imply the responder views the remark about "Billy" as being a conclusion or attestation about them and and one or more of their abilities (physical or mental or both as befits the moment) as well as about "Billy's" abilities and merit.​

Those sorts of replies are, along with ad hominem attacks, are among the most unsophisticated ones going. They are the lines of retort that bullies and mental midgets use because they have absolutely nothing of substance to put forth as a direct and "on point" rebuttal, and they are unwilling to agree with the original statement/conclusion. In many ways, it's the ultimate admission that they are committed to standing on a given position, but have no idea of why or the reason why, when they review it in their mind, doesn't even make sense to them. We all can recall points in our life when that happened to us:

• "Johnny, why didn't you study for your test?", mother asked. "I don't know," Johnny replied.
• "Why did you jump into the hole, Helen?" "I don't know," Helen replied.
• "What were you thinking when you hit Mike?" "I don't know," Ed answered.

Now it's possible that "I don't know" is a legit answer...Johnny, Helen and Ed could in fact be insane or at least mentally deficient somehow. Short of that, they acted like and responded like children. I mean really...Who does or thinks "whatever" and is also unable to identify why? Answering "why" one does/thinks something is among the easiest questions to answer and answer accurately and honestly. The Devil doesn't make that many people do that many things. LOL
​

So what about all that makes me declare the beha/refute assertions and positions is a foregone conclusion from the instant one joins. Who in their right mind would show up here and respond to or make remarks they can defend only with invalid lines of argumentation? Does a good army go to war without arms? Do firemen go to a burning building without protective gear or water? Well, that's in substance what quite a lot of folks do upon participating in arguments here and it's patently evident every time someone invokes a moral equivalence retort.


Note:
There is a special form of ad hominem argument that Donald Trump has taken to these days. It's called tu quoque or the "you too" argument. Lord only knows why he uses it daily, multiple times a day in fact, but use it does. I just mention it here because some folks may confuse it with moral equivalence. They aren't the same, but they may look similar.

 

[mudwhistle]

...And this morning, the Trump campaign spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, is actually trying to convince people that the reorg is "not a shake up" but rather "an expansion." LOL

See that's a key trait of the Trump campaign and Trump: it/he condescends to people to the extent that it's downright insulting to people's intelligence to try to get them to believe the things it/he says.

Baghdad Bob Pierson is the least believable player in the entire presidential campaign.

I hope old man Trump got a few good ***** out of her because he certainly isn't getting anything else for his money.

Funny you would say that. Coming from a supporter of a dishonest candidate that is often compared to Baghdad Bob.


- Baghdad Bob and Hillary ? Strange Bedfellows

Once again he tries to defend Trump by showing how much Trump is like Hillary Clinton.

I really cannot explain it. I've never before joining this forum come across so many folks who will at the drop of a hat and in all seriousness invoke a flavor of a moral equivalence -- for example, relative privation -- argument/rebuttal for their/against others' position(s).

It's downright bizarre to see so many people use that fallacious line of rebuttal/argument for it signals unavoidably that the speaker has internalized the remarks that inspired them to invoke that line of argument. It signals a pretty high degree of insecurity and ineptitude. For example:

Original Assertion/Argument:

• Billy demonstrates trait A, therefore he is worthy/unworthy of "whatever."

Moral Equivalence Responses/Rebuttal examples:

• What about Mark? He demonstrates trait A in triplicate. He's even less/more worthy.
• Well, Mark displays trait A and trait B, which is worse/better, so I'll go with Billy instead any day.

Retorts like that necessarily imply the responder views the remark about "Billy" as being a conclusion or attestation about them and and one or more of their abilities (physical or mental or both as befits the moment) as well as about "Billy's" abilities and merit.​

Those sorts of replies are, along with ad hominem attacks, are among the most unsophisticated ones going. They are the lines of retort that bullies and mental midgets use because they have absolutely nothing of substance to put forth as a direct and "on point" rebuttal, and they are unwilling to agree with the original statement/conclusion. In many ways, it's the ultimate admission that they are committed to standing on a given position, but have no idea of why or the reason why, when they review it in their mind, doesn't even make sense to them. We all can recall points in our life when that happened to us:

• "Johnny, why didn't you study for your test?", mother asked. "I don't know," Johnny replied.
• "Why did you jump into the hole, Helen?" "I don't know," Helen replied.
• "What were you thinking when you hit Mike?" "I don't know," Ed answered.

Now it's possible that "I don't know" is a legit answer...Johnny, Helen and Ed could in fact be insane or at least mentally deficient somehow. Short of that, they acted like and responded like children. I mean really...Who does or thinks "whatever" and is also unable to identify why? Answering "why" one does/thinks something is among the easiest questions to answer and answer accurately and honestly. The Devil doesn't make that many people do that many things. LOL
​

So what about all that makes me declare the beha/refute assertions and positions is a foregone conclusion from the instant one joins. Who in their right mind would show up here and respond to or make remarks they can defend only with invalid lines of argumentation? Does a good army go to war without arms? Do firemen go to a burning building without protective gear or water? Well, that's in substance what quite a lot of folks do upon participating in arguments here and it's patently evident every time someone invokes a moral equivalence retort.


Note:
There is a special form of ad hominem argument that Donald Trump has taken to these days. It's called tu quoque or the "you too" argument. Lord only knows why he uses it daily, multiple times a day in fact, but use it does. I just mention it here because some folks may confuse it with moral equivalence. They aren't the same, but they may look similar.

That's true. Relativistists like Carbine try to do that all the time. Problem is though, he has to use imaginary argument from his target to make that case.

But Hillary's entire campaign is based off of this tactic, using her weakness as a way of bashing her opponent. Democrats love using relativism to explain away each and every one of their ill-deeds.