"Wow. Lol. I can refute everything he said. I just don't have time to dive into 100+ article links."

That's the point of that style of approach to an argument and why, instead of diving into those articles, I tried to open a conversation about the purpose of the approach. It's transparently obvious that nobody has time to read or argue with all of that. If someone's sincerely concerned with convincing people not to vote for Trump, it's very obvious that this approach is terrible.

It's GREAT if your purpose is to provide too many articles to refute and then claim your opposition didn't refute everything, so their side is wrong.

That mentality is one of the chief problems with political discourse in Western society. I don't want to perpetuate that by playing into it.

@President Eden: Well stated. I will however take a look at some of those articles later tonight, but you are absolutely correct.

Trump supports the zoo killing Harambe.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/31/trump-supports-zoo-call-to-kill-harambe/85190958/

He's not asking you to refute everything he says. His point is that an exhaustive list of the things wrong with Trump, if such a list were even possible, is far too long to do anything with, because the man is not remotely fit to be president.

The purpose of the approach is to show that the overwhelming evidence and facts show the reality that Trump is an absolutely vile human being and that Clinton is, in reality, pretty decent.

Cue of course the deluge of slanders and outright lies that make up the deranged psychosis that is conservativism.

Frankly, my inner Trump hopes that Trumpsters do rise up, so we can send in the army to go all Trump on them and shoot them, bomb their families, torture them with "much tougher than waterboarding," ban them from the country, and stop and frisk them for fun everytime they step outside. That would be amusing to watch, but wrong.

Wait.

but fuck Harambe.

the only reason why the media covered it was b/c someone reported "crazy monkey gets shot while holding no gun"

and the news ran it.

And no, PE, your side is wrong because it stands for utterly reprehensible values and based in a pile of lies. THAT is why your side is wrong. The volume of articles has little to do with it.

"and that Clinton is, in reality, pretty decent."

you haven't proven that. YOU MMUtED BE BECAUSE YOU'RE A LILLY HEARTED SCALAWAG

"Cue of course the deluge of slanders and outright lies that make up the deranged psychosis that is conservativism"

ad hominum, with no proof. -1

"Frankly, my inner Trump hopes that Trumpsters do rise up, so we can send in the army to go all Trump on them and shoot them, bomb their families, torture them with "much tougher than waterboarding," ban them from the country, and stop and frisk them for fun everytime they step outside. That would be amusing to watch, but wrong."

-You are a sick person. Stating that you want people to be tortured and massacred because they have a different political perspective then you is utterly despicable and sick. What a sick person.

@Ogion

compared to what Obama has done? Hillary? they're no saints.

and at least ND and Krellin never muted me. BIIIITTCHHHH

I am sure the mods monitor this thread. Can a mod tell me how that kind of language and hateful speech is tolerated? Wishing death on people that disagree with you politically is okay now? Jesus Christ (excuse me taking the lord's name in vain.)

It's a very impressively long list of the things people don't like about Trump are claiming about Trump. It's not a measure of fitness for the presidency. It's a measure of how effective the Internet is for uniting the efforts of individuals who have a particular political opinion into a singular such list.

And considering three people including the poster himself expected some form of refutation or proof on my end, I would disagree with the assertion that it was constructed with a different purpose in mind than "throw a bunch of stuff at a Trump supporter and press them to answer everything, then claim victory when they inevitably don't." I could be wrong, and I did try to open a discussion in the event that it was constructed with a sincere attempt at persuasion in mind, but that was how it looked to me when I read it.

"Frankly, my inner Trump hopes that Trumpsters do rise up, so we can send in the army to go all Trump on them and shoot them, bomb their families, torture them with "much tougher than waterboarding," ban them from the country, and stop and frisk them for fun everytime they step outside. That would be amusing to watch, but wrong."

You suck. Bye.

@ND

hahaha he had it in the hypothetical calm down. I've certainly done worse. then again... i WAS banned...

"I am sure the mods monitor this thread. Can a mod tell me how that kind of language and hateful speech is tolerated? Wishing death on people that disagree with you politically is okay now? Jesus Christ (excuse me taking the lord's name in vain.)"

nha fuck that let him say it. Let the more moderate people, especially the undecided American voters, see it. Let the very many number of reasonable but (imo) misinformed Clinton supporters on here see it and enjoy the thought of sharing a political affiliation with someone like that.

@ND He's clearly stating that the things Trump has said he wishes to do are wrong. It's eminently evident, including the fact that he used quotation marks on a portion to help anyone not following along.

Wow.

lol

In other news I did sign up to vote canvass for Mr. Trump this weekend in Virginia. Hopefully with any luck VA will go red and seal the deal. Wish me luck.

Regardless of who wins the office of the President youll have to see someone who voted x. Im in general more fearful of a political party in bed with guns lobbyists.

But eh could be worse, if they start shooting more Apes tho we have a problem yo.

@ND do you consider the majority of webdip users less intelligent than yourself if they dont support Trump?

I don't want that post moderated and hope that there is no mod intervention in the thread beyond correspondence like this, because I think it's wholly unnecessary.

But that post is emblematic of the kind of hateful speech that I thought we set out to stop in 2014 when I was a moderator. It's just barely dancing around the first and third rule under the Site-moderation heading in the Rulebook on the site and clearly violates the spirit of both.

As noted, I don't want any moderation taken on the post, but IF the legitimate response of a member of the mod team to that is *advocacy for the post in question* then we fucked up badly. (Bigly even. ;) )

krellin was right.

"Let the more moderate people, especially the undecided American voters, see it. Let the very many number of reasonable but (imo) misinformed Clinton supporters on here see it and enjoy the thought of sharing a political affiliation with someone like that."

@PE, the KKK has officially endorsed Trump, and you think me and other Hillary supporters are concerned about sharing a political affiliation with someone?

That said, that post was disgusting and should get a forum warning in my opinion.

@JMO: The CPUSA endorsed Hillary Clinton. Which as you know is an anti-democratic party with ties to the Communist Party that led to the death of over 100 million people.

Weird, fringe, lunatic groups endorse major party candidates to get their names in the headlines. Trump disavowed the KKK, but Clinton never disavowed CPUSA.

Really makes you think.

@PE: Also, thank you for the clarification on the post in question.

If you start saying you hope for violence that doesnt expand the liberal idealogy first of all. Im anti war, anti guns. Still afraid of what trump supporters will do....

But ND and other republicans on here namely are not criminals nor would they do anything but abhor mass shootings in Trumps name if trump lost.

@Brainbomb: I am not an elitist.