Bernie Can't Win

[blastula]

Someone already said that he isn't to be believed because he's a Klansman. I replied by asking if that meant an earlier endorsement of Trump wasn't to be believed for the same reason.

Stop evading the question and answer it. What are you afraid of?

I only responded to your stupid point that politicians lie as though that explains why Clinton could have a hidden KKK agenda, as though politicians are the only liars.

But if you care so much about the mind of klansmen, why don't you ask your hero Ron Paul about it? He knows lots more about them than I do.

 

[laughing dog]

Someone already said that he isn't to be believed because he's a Klansman. I replied by asking if that meant an earlier endorsement of Trump wasn't to be believed for the same reason.

No one said a KKKer lies all of time. The obvious reasons to doubt the sincerity of this person's endorsement are
1) Hillary Clinton's views are not consistent with most of the KKK's positions,
2) the Grand Kleagle's rationale (that she will do the opposite of what she says) seems fucking nuts, and
3) the u-turn from being a Trump supporter seems a bit abrupt given Trump's racist statements about Mexican immigrants.

Whether or not the previous support from Trump is irrelevant to the issue of the sincerity of the Grand Kleagle's recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I find it more likely that the Grand Kleagle supports someone like Trump than someone like Clinton. He may have been lying about his support about Trump, but I find his support of Trump to be more consistent with KKK views and therefore I find it less likely he lied about that. I find his support of Hillary Clinton much less consistent with KKK views and I find his rationale nuts, so I think it much more likely that if he is lying about his support, that he is lying about his support for Hillary Clinton.

Since you are the one who brought of Grand Kleagle's endorsement, it is reasonable to ask if you find his rationale believable. I've answered your irrelevant question. You have had plenty of time to answer the question, yet you continue to evade it. What are you afraid of?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I only responded to your stupid point that politicians lie as though that explains why Clinton could have a hidden KKK agenda, as though politicians are the only liars.

But if you care so much about the mind of klansmen, why don't you ask your hero Ron Paul about it? He knows lots more about them than I do.

If you mean "by studying it from the outside" I'm sure he knows more on many subjects.

If you mean from the inside, I'm afraid you have reversed roles.

Someone already said that he isn't to be believed because he's a Klansman. I replied by asking if that meant an earlier endorsement of Trump wasn't to be believed for the same reason.

No one said a KKKer lies all of time. The obvious reasons to doubt the sincerity of this person's endorsement are
1) Hillary Clinton's views are not consistent with most of the KKK's positions,
2) the Grand Kleagle's rationale (that she will do the opposite of what she says) seems fucking nuts, and
3) the u-turn from being a Trump supporter seems a bit abrupt given Trump's racist statements about Mexican immigrants.

Whether or not the previous support from Trump is irrelevant to the issue of the sincerity of the Grand Kleagle's recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I find it more likely that the Grand Kleagle supports someone like Trump than someone like Clinton. He may have been lying about his support about Trump, but I find his support of Trump to be more consistent with KKK views and therefore I find it less likely he lied about that. I find his support of Hillary Clinton much less consistent with KKK views and I find his rationale nuts, so I think it much more likely that if he is lying about his support, that he is lying about his support for Hillary Clinton.

If Kleagles are smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Hillary, are they smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Trump?

I'm enjoying seeing people contort themselves in extreme degrees to say that one endorsement counts and the other doesn't.

Since you are the one who brought of Grand Kleagle's endorsement, it is reasonable to ask if you find his rationale believable. I've answered your irrelevant question. You have had plenty of time to answer the question, yet you continue to evade it. What are you afraid of?

I'm not afraid of irrelevancies, or of treating them as irrelevancies. What are you so afraid of? You are the one trying to insist that one endorsement counts and the other doesn't for no reason you can actually name.

 

[ZiprHead]

It seems that Americans may soon get their chance to vote for their first ever female president. And may the gawds go with you!

Nope, Lindsey Graham dropped out.

 

[laughing dog]

If Kleagles are smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Hillary, are they smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Trump?

Maybe, maybe not.

I'm not afraid of irrelevancies

Obviously, since you are started one.
What are you so afraid of?

You are the one trying to insist that one endorsement counts and the other doesn't for no reason you can actually name.

Anyone with 2nd grade reading comprehension and intellectually honesty can see that is false. I said his support of Trump is more believable to me than his support of Clinton.

But you still have not answered the question - do you find the Grand Kleagle's rationale for endorsing Hillary Clinton believable? On the one hand, you did bring this up, which suggests you do believe it. On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that even someone who is gullible enough to support the politician liar Ron Paul would find his rationale believable.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, the question isn't if I find his endorsement believable, the question is if you are willing to apply one single standard to the two endorsements.

Trump was endorsed, then Trump lost the Klan vote when Hillary was endorsed. One standard, can you do it? Nope.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump said he couldn't speak about whether he would denounce the KKK.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, he did denounce several times, but upon being asked yet again he told the reporter he wasn't going to speak about it. The very last time he was asked is what is reported.

Unlike Hillary, who was never asked and has yet to denounce the KKK.

 

[laughing dog]

No, the question isn't if I find his endorsement believable,

That was the question. And you continue to evade the answer. And I understand why you evade it. If you say you do not find the Kleagle's rationale for endorsing Clinton, there is no foundation for your derail. If you do say it is believable, then you look even more gullible than the usual Ron Paul supporter.

Trump was endorsed, then Trump lost the Klan vote when Hillary was endorsed. One standard, can you do it? Nope.

The question is which endorsement (if either) is believable. That is standard. And it is clear you are either incapable or unwilling to do it.

 

[zorq]

No, the question isn't if I find his endorsement believable, the question is if you are willing to apply one single standard to the two endorsements.

Trump was endorsed, then Trump lost the Klan vote when Hillary was endorsed. One standard, can you do it? Nope.

The two endorsements exist within a historical context. Treating them equivalently as you are attempting to do here is either foolish or disingenuous.

Here is the historical context as I understand it.
1. Trump runs a successful primary campaign for the Republican nomination.
2. a Klan leader endorses Trump.
3. The media reports on the endorsement.
4. The media confronts Trump on the endorsement.
5. Trump gives inconsistent answers regarding the endorsement.
6. Media perception of the endorsement is largely negative towards Trump.
7. Klan leader changes endorsement to Clinton.

Here is the bogus question you pose supposing the endorsements can be considered equivalent: "If Kleagles are smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Hillary, are they smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Trump?"

Klan leaders who may not expect their endorsements to be broadcast by the media may feel free to genuinely endorse candidates they approve of. Klan leaders who discover that their their endorsements may be used to provide negative publicity for candidates may choose to disingenuously endorse the candidate they perceive to be their biggest threat. Is this far fetched at all? No.

Did I really need to point this out to you?
Come on now.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here is the bogus question you pose supposing the endorsements can be considered equivalent: "If Kleagles are smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Hillary, are they smart enough to know their endorsement is a poison pill when they endorse Trump?"

That's not a bogus question, that's a central question. Either they know their endorsement is a poison pill, or they do not. If they know they initially tried to sink Trump then decided to sink Hillary. If they do not know they actually endorsed Trump then decided to endorse Hillary.

Did I really need to point this out to you?
Come on now.

Actually you need to point it out to LD who is telling me that the Trump endorsement counts and the Hillary endorsement doesn't count, because of reasons.