Campaign 2016

[Emily]

The business of human trafficking(slave trading) was and is still business-driven. The whale oil industry is inextricably connected as is the tobacco farming industry, Caribbean island rum running, and the insurance industry who underwrote them. I don't hear you calling out the business that drove it and the complicity in the countries which engaged in trafficking human beings.  It was a cooperative effort, the job-description matching with the desire for free labor.  

And, I don't hear you calling out the London businessmen who kidnapped Irish girls, aged 13-16 for sex-ploitation and eventual death by 17 from TB or syphilis as written about in "Promenade dans Londres" by Flora Tristan. Slavery has been universal - and virtually no race has been excluded. It is no different from the underbelly you cite in Central America.  Slaves, in every skin hue. ISIS keeps slaves as well. Slavery is universally evil.  We don't need to pick and choose whose version is worse.

Though now you've brought these irrelevant topics up, I will comment, as is my compulsion. All slavery is awful, of course. If you want to produce a list of every act of enslavement ever, I will say that each one is awful.
And most, but not all, slavery is driven by finance.
But, there's a distinct difference between criminal organizations or criminal individuals enslaving people and states and countries codifying chattel slavery based on race in their laws and maintaining it as a deep part of the national structure for centuries. That is something very rare in history.

edit - I exaggerated - I'll change that to post-classical age history.

[Emily]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

[KDS]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me. 

[Emily]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me.  

Given that it's been shown that political campaigns have a practice of placing false craigslist ads (see DNC emails for one) to smear their opponents; given that the text of this ad transparently indicates that it's the for the DNC, but pretends to hide that it's for the DNC; given that it hasn't been traced to the DNC; given that a political organization the size of the DNC has huge networks of volunteers who fill this sort of role; given that if the DNC actually wanted to hire actors, they wouldn't publicly do it through Craigslist; given that the DNC has to report its expenditures, what's your basis for believing it to be from the DNC?

I mean, do people actually want to understand what's going on and vote based on the best ideas to address what's going on, or do people want to vote based on lies?
One thing I probably agree with FdP on is that campaigns have become dishonest, but that behooves us to try a little harder to find the truth, not just repeat the lies, right?
But it seems that the transparent dishonesty of campaigns have led much of the rest of the population to be transparently dishonest themselves. It's become acceptable, even normal, for people to lie, to repeat campaign lies as if it's the truth, with no evidence or even reason to believe those lies are true.
Wouldn't you want the election to be decided because people are grappling with truth rather than because people are spreading lies?

[HeyJude]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

That website is not a news website nor a real source for news.

By its own admission, it's a right wing propaganda website.

It appears to be less fact-based than "The Onion."

Someone can go on Craigslist right now and post an ad asking for cadavers to fill the seats at a Trump rally because all of his supporters have tapeworms.

For what its worth, a far more neutral website that debunks urban legends and myths of all sorts has already addressed this Craigslist ad situation as "unproven":

http://www.snopes.com/dnc-hiring-actors-via-craigslist-to-replace-delegates/

[KDS]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me.  

Given that it's been shown that political campaigns have a practice of placing false craigslist ads (see DNC emails for one) to smear their opponents; given that the text of this ad transparently indicates that it's the for the DNC, but pretends to hide that it's for the DNC; given that it hasn't been traced to the DNC; given that a political organization the size of the DNC has huge networks of volunteers who fill this sort of role; given that if the DNC actually wanted to hire actors, they wouldn't publicly do it through Craigslist; given that the DNC has to report its expenditures, what's your basis for believing it to be from the DNC?

I mean, do people actually want to understand what's going on and vote based on the best ideas to address what's going on, or do people want to vote based on lies?
One thing I probably agree with FdP on is that campaigns have become dishonest, but that behooves us to try a little harder to find the truth, not just repeat the lies, right?
But it seems that the transparent dishonesty of campaigns have led much of the rest of the population to be transparently dishonest themselves. It's become acceptable, even normal, for people to lie, to repeat campaign lies as if it's the truth, with no evidence or even reason to believe those lies are true.
Wouldn't you want the election to be decided because people are grappling with truth rather than because people are spreading lies?

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

[Emily]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me.  

Given that it's been shown that political campaigns have a practice of placing false craigslist ads (see DNC emails for one) to smear their opponents; given that the text of this ad transparently indicates that it's the for the DNC, but pretends to hide that it's for the DNC; given that it hasn't been traced to the DNC; given that a political organization the size of the DNC has huge networks of volunteers who fill this sort of role; given that if the DNC actually wanted to hire actors, they wouldn't publicly do it through Craigslist; given that the DNC has to report its expenditures, what's your basis for believing it to be from the DNC?

I mean, do people actually want to understand what's going on and vote based on the best ideas to address what's going on, or do people want to vote based on lies?
One thing I probably agree with FdP on is that campaigns have become dishonest, but that behooves us to try a little harder to find the truth, not just repeat the lies, right?
But it seems that the transparent dishonesty of campaigns have led much of the rest of the population to be transparently dishonest themselves. It's become acceptable, even normal, for people to lie, to repeat campaign lies as if it's the truth, with no evidence or even reason to believe those lies are true.
Wouldn't you want the election to be decided because people are grappling with truth rather than because people are spreading lies?

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

[HeyJude]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care,

You don't care and you're not concerned with the veracity of the story, but you posted a link to a right wing propaganda website, ostensibly as some sort of corroboration of the story?

*If* I was of the mindset of the type of people who identify with the politics of that website (I'm of course not), I would stay as far away from such a site as possible, as it completely undercuts the credibility of anyone citing it.

"The Onion" literally has more factual stories on their website; they actually have a separate editorial/review section that is not satirical.

[Emily]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

That website is not a news website nor a real source for news.

By its own admission, it's a right wing propaganda website.

It appears to be less fact-based than "The Onion."

Someone can go on Craigslist right now and post an ad asking for cadavers to fill the seats at a Trump rally because all of his supporters have tapeworms.

For what its worth, a far more neutral website that debunks urban legends and myths of all sorts has already addressed this Craigslist ad situation as "unproven":

http://www.snopes.com/dnc-hiring-actors-via-craigslist-to-replace-delegates/

Someone tried to scam me on an apartment listing on Craigslist just last week. Fortunately, I validated before I paid, so I didn't get scammed. But I went to the police and, in this state, it's not illegal to try to scam. It only becomes illegal when it's successful.
And Craigslist, unlike ebay or something, has no verification process and no scam-reporting mechanism.

[Emily]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care,

*If* I was of the mindset of the type of people who identify with the politics of that website (I'm of course not), I would stay as far away from such a site as possible, as it completely undercuts the credibility of anyone citing it.

You'd think so, but I actually think conscious dishonesty has become an accepted part of the discourse. It's disturbing.

[HeyJude]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

That website is not a news website nor a real source for news.

By its own admission, it's a right wing propaganda website.

It appears to be less fact-based than "The Onion."

Someone can go on Craigslist right now and post an ad asking for cadavers to fill the seats at a Trump rally because all of his supporters have tapeworms.

For what its worth, a far more neutral website that debunks urban legends and myths of all sorts has already addressed this Craigslist ad situation as "unproven":

http://www.snopes.com/dnc-hiring-actors-via-craigslist-to-replace-delegates/

Someone tried to scam me on an apartment listing on Craigslist just last week. Fortunately, I validated before I paid, so I didn't get scammed. But I went to the police and, in this state, it's not illegal to try to scam. It only becomes illegal when it's successful.
And Craigslist, unlike ebay or something, has no verification process and no scam-reporting mechanism.

Not to mention, even on more moderated venues like eBay, you can even post some bat***t insane stuff and it will last for awhile before being pulled down.

And unlike this recent DNC Craigslist thing, at least a few of those human livers on eBay may have been real......

[HeyJude]

I think this website *does* confirm the DNC Craigslist story:

[KDS]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me.  

Given that it's been shown that political campaigns have a practice of placing false craigslist ads (see DNC emails for one) to smear their opponents; given that the text of this ad transparently indicates that it's the for the DNC, but pretends to hide that it's for the DNC; given that it hasn't been traced to the DNC; given that a political organization the size of the DNC has huge networks of volunteers who fill this sort of role; given that if the DNC actually wanted to hire actors, they wouldn't publicly do it through Craigslist; given that the DNC has to report its expenditures, what's your basis for believing it to be from the DNC?

I mean, do people actually want to understand what's going on and vote based on the best ideas to address what's going on, or do people want to vote based on lies?
One thing I probably agree with FdP on is that campaigns have become dishonest, but that behooves us to try a little harder to find the truth, not just repeat the lies, right?
But it seems that the transparent dishonesty of campaigns have led much of the rest of the population to be transparently dishonest themselves. It's become acceptable, even normal, for people to lie, to repeat campaign lies as if it's the truth, with no evidence or even reason to believe those lies are true.
Wouldn't you want the election to be decided because people are grappling with truth rather than because people are spreading lies?

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

You might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown because your Mayor allowed "space to destroy."  And put our Police force in harms way by having them stand down while rioters hurled rocks and bricks at them.  A Mayor who also allowed an arrogant prosecutor waste tax dollars to ruin the lives of six good police officers, and took over $6M in tax money to pay off the mother of a criminal.  

[KDS]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care,

You don't care and you're not concerned with the veracity of the story, but you posted a link to a right wing propaganda website, ostensibly as some sort of corroboration of the story?

*If* I was of the mindset of the type of people who identify with the politics of that website (I'm of course not), I would stay as far away from such a site as possible, as it completely undercuts the credibility of anyone citing it.

"The Onion" literally has more factual stories on their website; they actually have a separate editorial/review section that is not satirical.

You missed my point. 

What I'm saying is, even if the story is true, it's not the worst thing about the DNC by far.

[Emily]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me.  

Given that it's been shown that political campaigns have a practice of placing false craigslist ads (see DNC emails for one) to smear their opponents; given that the text of this ad transparently indicates that it's the for the DNC, but pretends to hide that it's for the DNC; given that it hasn't been traced to the DNC; given that a political organization the size of the DNC has huge networks of volunteers who fill this sort of role; given that if the DNC actually wanted to hire actors, they wouldn't publicly do it through Craigslist; given that the DNC has to report its expenditures, what's your basis for believing it to be from the DNC?

I mean, do people actually want to understand what's going on and vote based on the best ideas to address what's going on, or do people want to vote based on lies?
One thing I probably agree with FdP on is that campaigns have become dishonest, but that behooves us to try a little harder to find the truth, not just repeat the lies, right?
But it seems that the transparent dishonesty of campaigns have led much of the rest of the population to be transparently dishonest themselves. It's become acceptable, even normal, for people to lie, to repeat campaign lies as if it's the truth, with no evidence or even reason to believe those lies are true.
Wouldn't you want the election to be decided because people are grappling with truth rather than because people are spreading lies?

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

You might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown because your Mayor allowed "space to destroy."  And put our Police force in harms way by having them stand down while rioters hurled rocks and bricks at them.  A Mayor who also allowed an arrogant prosecutor waste tax dollars to ruin the lives of six good police officers, and took over $6M in tax money to pay off the mother of a criminal.  

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

[KDS]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

Okey doke. Another person spreading this lie.

More believable than "white privilege" if you ask me.  

Given that it's been shown that political campaigns have a practice of placing false craigslist ads (see DNC emails for one) to smear their opponents; given that the text of this ad transparently indicates that it's the for the DNC, but pretends to hide that it's for the DNC; given that it hasn't been traced to the DNC; given that a political organization the size of the DNC has huge networks of volunteers who fill this sort of role; given that if the DNC actually wanted to hire actors, they wouldn't publicly do it through Craigslist; given that the DNC has to report its expenditures, what's your basis for believing it to be from the DNC?

I mean, do people actually want to understand what's going on and vote based on the best ideas to address what's going on, or do people want to vote based on lies?
One thing I probably agree with FdP on is that campaigns have become dishonest, but that behooves us to try a little harder to find the truth, not just repeat the lies, right?
But it seems that the transparent dishonesty of campaigns have led much of the rest of the population to be transparently dishonest themselves. It's become acceptable, even normal, for people to lie, to repeat campaign lies as if it's the truth, with no evidence or even reason to believe those lies are true.
Wouldn't you want the election to be decided because people are grappling with truth rather than because people are spreading lies?

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

You might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown because your Mayor allowed "space to destroy."  And put our Police force in harms way by having them stand down while rioters hurled rocks and bricks at them.  A Mayor who also allowed an arrogant prosecutor waste tax dollars to ruin the lives of six good police officers, and took over $6M in tax money to pay off the mother of a criminal.  

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

I feel that the choice to let people riot and destroy businesses is far bigger than a "personal experience." 

[HeyJude]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care,

You don't care and you're not concerned with the veracity of the story, but you posted a link to a right wing propaganda website, ostensibly as some sort of corroboration of the story?

*If* I was of the mindset of the type of people who identify with the politics of that website (I'm of course not), I would stay as far away from such a site as possible, as it completely undercuts the credibility of anyone citing it.

"The Onion" literally has more factual stories on their website; they actually have a separate editorial/review section that is not satirical.

You missed my point. 

What I'm saying is, even if the story is true, it's not the worst thing about the DNC by far.

I understand that point. I just don't buy the idea that someone "doesn't care" about something if they go to some amount of effort to advocate the point. It's easy to say *after* advocating the point (and after the "source" is proven wrong) that "it's not the worst problem anyway." It many cases, this is a classic diversionary tactic.

I agree that right wing advocates surely have a litany of things that they'll rail about beyond that Craigslist story. I just question the motives then of perpetuating the story.

Also, my main point is that if there's *other* stuff one cares about more than that Craigslist story, then one loses credibility (in my view) across the board by citing such a hack, laughable internet source, especially concerning a story that one doesn't "care" about that much.

If an anti-Trump advocate posted links to goofy stories about Trump's DNA being partially of orangutan origins or whatever, I'd question the credibility of that person, even if I agreed with their general political philosophy.

[Emily]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

You might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown because your Mayor allowed "space to destroy."  And put our Police force in harms way by having them stand down while rioters hurled rocks and bricks at them.  A Mayor who also allowed an arrogant prosecutor waste tax dollars to ruin the lives of six good police officers, and took over $6M in tax money to pay off the mother of a criminal.  

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

I feel that the choice to let people riot and destroy businesses is far bigger than a "personal experience."  

Quite. But I interpreted the gist of your post to be "you might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown..." I factually know about the rest of your post, so my existing opinion has taken that into account. The only distinction I saw in your post was that I didn't see it in my hometown. And I hope that wouldn't change my opinion.

[KDS]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

You might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown because your Mayor allowed "space to destroy."  And put our Police force in harms way by having them stand down while rioters hurled rocks and bricks at them.  A Mayor who also allowed an arrogant prosecutor waste tax dollars to ruin the lives of six good police officers, and took over $6M in tax money to pay off the mother of a criminal.  

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

I feel that the choice to let people riot and destroy businesses is far bigger than a "personal experience."  

Quite. But I interpreted the gist of your post to be "you might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown..." I factually know about the rest of your post, so my existing opinion has taken that into account. The only distinction I saw in your post was that I didn't see it in my hometown. And I hope that wouldn't change my opinion.

So, because it didn't happen in your hometown, you're OK with having a Mayor who encouraged riots and put police in danger to be a major player in the DNC? 

[HeyJude]

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

What you say here is a huge and important point, and one unfortunately that many folks just don't even understand, let alone agree with.

Personal anecdotes and experiences (especially one-off experiences), contrary to what people might assume and feel, are often (not always, but often) the WORST source to try to take away any sort of broad truth or conclusion about anything.

Personal anecdotes have often led to some of the worst, invalid conclusions, whether we're talking about a political issue or a movie recommendation.

[KDS]

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

What you say here is a huge and important point, and one unfortunately that many folks just don't even understand, let alone agree with.

Personal anecdotes and experiences (especially one-off experiences), contrary to what people might assume and feel, are often (not always, but often) the WORST source to try to take away any sort of broad truth or conclusion about anything.

Personal anecdotes have often led to some of the worst, invalid conclusions, whether we're talking about a political issue or a movie recommendation.

My post about the riots in my hometown were far from an anecdote.  It's not like a shared a story about being accosted by homeless man on the way to my car.  This is a much bigger issue.  This Mayor condoned rioting, and the DNC deemed her worthy of banging the gavel on Monday......and she forgot to even do that. 

[Emily]

Quite frankly, I'm not really concerned about whether or not the DNC is paying actors to fill seats.  True or false, I really don't care, and it's far from the embarrassing compared to some of the troubling things I've heard:

1.  Having Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake bang the gavel.  This is the same woman who gave rioters "space to destroy" and ordered Baltimore Police to stand down.  

2.  Having the mother of Michael Brown, a criminal who committed multiple crimes before attacking the arresting officer Darren Wilson, speak at the DNC.

If the Democratic party wishes to lose the perception that they're anti law enforcement, these were insanely poor choices.  Why not balance that with a widow from one of the fallen officers from Dallas who were taken down by that domestic terror group called BLM?

3.  Having the daughter of an illegal immigrant talk about how she's afraid to get kicked out of the USA.  

Again, pandering to law breakers.  

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect, far from it.  But this is just........... silly.  

I disagree with you on all of these things, but they are honestly your opinions, so I appreciate that.

You might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown because your Mayor allowed "space to destroy."  And put our Police force in harms way by having them stand down while rioters hurled rocks and bricks at them.  A Mayor who also allowed an arrogant prosecutor waste tax dollars to ruin the lives of six good police officers, and took over $6M in tax money to pay off the mother of a criminal.  

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

I feel that the choice to let people riot and destroy businesses is far bigger than a "personal experience."  

Quite. But I interpreted the gist of your post to be "you might have a different opinion if you saw riots in your hometown..." I factually know about the rest of your post, so my existing opinion has taken that into account. The only distinction I saw in your post was that I didn't see it in my hometown. And I hope that wouldn't change my opinion.

So, because it didn't happen in your hometown, you're OK with having a Mayor who encouraged riots and put police in danger to be a major player in the DNC? 

I don't believe that you believe that's what I was saying. I believe that you know that's a dishonest characterization, bringing this back to the earlier topic.

What I was saying is that my opinion would, I hope, be the same whether or not, it happened in my home town.

[HeyJude]

So, because it didn't happen in your hometown, you're OK with having a Mayor who encouraged riots and put police in danger to be a major player in the DNC? 

This is dangerous logic, though. It assumes way too much about someone. Assuming that if someone is of a particular ideology, they therefore must be okay with any and all events that *you* ascribe that same ideology, is pretty dangerous.

Anyone that advocates for Trump then must be "OK" with a sh*t ton of awful, horrible, offensive, dangerous comments, actions, and sentiments.

I've seen a ton of things in my community, both on a local and more broad level, that have been hugely unfortunate and came at the hands of right wing politicians. But I can't assume every person who is right-wing and who didn't live in my community therefore automatically agrees that all of those awful things are OK.

It's obviously even more dicey when the "awful thing" in question is bogged down in a huge haze of conflicting stories, opinions, warring political ideologies and agendas, and so on.

[Emily]

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

What you say here is a huge and important point, and one unfortunately that many folks just don't even understand, let alone agree with.

Personal anecdotes and experiences (especially one-off experiences), contrary to what people might assume and feel, are often (not always, but often) the WORST source to try to take away any sort of broad truth or conclusion about anything.

Personal anecdotes have often led to some of the worst, invalid conclusions, whether we're talking about a political issue or a movie recommendation.

My post about the riots in my hometown were far from an anecdote.  It's not like a shared a story about being accosted by homeless man on the way to my car.  This is a much bigger issue.  This Mayor condoned rioting, and the DNC deemed her worthy of banging the gavel on Monday......and she forgot to even do that. 

I think what heyjude and I are talking about, is that the fact that it was your hometown should not be relevant to one's opinion on it, as a policy issue. It will have an effect on your personal feelings about it. But it ought not have an effect on your political opinion, if you are interested in government addressing its constituents at large, rather than your personal feelings.

[HeyJude]

Perhaps, but I try not to let my personal, immediate experience sway my opinions. Personal experience is rarely a guide to broad truths nor is it often a guide to what's best for the country at large.

What you say here is a huge and important point, and one unfortunately that many folks just don't even understand, let alone agree with.

Personal anecdotes and experiences (especially one-off experiences), contrary to what people might assume and feel, are often (not always, but often) the WORST source to try to take away any sort of broad truth or conclusion about anything.

Personal anecdotes have often led to some of the worst, invalid conclusions, whether we're talking about a political issue or a movie recommendation.

My post about the riots in my hometown were far from an anecdote.  It's not like a shared a story about being accosted by homeless man on the way to my car.  This is a much bigger issue.  This Mayor condoned rioting, and the DNC deemed her worthy of banging the gavel on Monday......and she forgot to even do that. 

I was speaking in much more broad sense and not so much to your particular story. Perhaps "anecdote" isn't always the right word. But I'm just getting your interpretation of an event. I don't know if your characterization is correct, and I certainly therefore question whether every person connected to it by numerous degrees of separation are therefore guilty by association.

Emily's point, I think, was that a singular event (whether a one-on-one personal anecdote or a story about a larger event you've experienced first hand) shouldn't necessarily be used to draw any huge conclusions. It can be part of a larger narrative.