Nobody that I know is suggesting that somebody can't or shouldn't read "an article."
But discussion -- at least the kind that I find most helpful and persuasive -- does not consist merely of waving toward "links" that we are expected to trust and plow through.
If something is pertinent and important, why can't it be said in our own words? As I noted before, real understanding of an issue usually enables somebody to explain it themselves, in their own words, clearly enough for even a child to understand it.
Brief appeals to other authority seem sometimes to be a breezy way to avoid really coming to grips with something but to appear, to ourselves and to some others, as if we have.
Others are, of course, free to disagree. And I'm not suggesting that quotation from an article or other source, during the course of a genuine discussion and attempt at argument or explanation, isn't sometimes helpful and useful.
But If I tried to discuss conditions leading up to the French Revolution, I'd expect to receive a more considered and condensed response than simply a link to A Tale of Two Cities. Even though the book, itself, is quite praiseworthy.
It is said in the words of the article author, his own words...
And you can check for the bias of the news agency. You can search for the author to see if he is somewhat trustworthy. You can fact check the article. You can search for more of what the article writes on.
I fail to see why me (anyone) rewording something adds value.
Many points were made. None have been refuted. A link is not a discussion or a debate. But I suppose it could provide a bit of comfort if and when we find ourselves at a loss for words.
@Noflaps said in #36:
> I doubt that, @justme23 . His political opponents will always have a tailwind. It's too easy to distract from real issues with emotional rhetoric and repetition or with promises of unaffordable freebies or vague declarations of joy. I wouldn't have believed that as a kid. But history and experience can reveal much that we are not born knowing.
Noflaps you disagree with everything and every person which are you Republican or democrat and please stick with it. Riding the fence will get you run over. Just saying I don't mean to offend you.
I just want to understand what you think?
@justme23 said in #45:
> Noflaps you disagree with everything and every person which are you Republican or democrat and please stick with it. Riding the fence will get you run over. Just saying I don't mean to offend you.
> I just want to understand what you think?
But @Noflaps has a point in that, which is I'm neither one of both evil. And however I express my thoughts they will be rejected by some Neo-Cons brainwashed minds > I feel ya.
If mentioning add a longer time without permission to post any url, this is just aside the topic. Then I wont mention any 1 anymo'
@justme23 , I'm not sure which fence you think I'm riding. But all that matters to me is trying to remain objective, to stick to facts, hard numbers, and actual track records rather than canned emotional hot air or cynical, needless fearmongering.
Do I think either candidate is perfect? Not a bit. But one doesn't seem to flip flop and is pretty forthright. And that's nothing to sneeze at, these days.
And I can express that in my own words. No need for me to wave at links.
By the way, just for the record, regarding my #39, I realize that "responses" "are" most helpful, not "is" most helpful. I apologize to all English teachers for my too-fast typing in #39. I'd like to say it won't happen again -- but I don't plan to slow down anytime soon.
@Noflaps said in #47:
I always flet like leaders who are willing to have an open mind and are willing to change their opinion based on new information were more valuable than someone who felt like "flip-flopping" was weakness. The opposite is equally bad: a leader who caves to foreign bullies then acts like their actions are actually in the country's best interest, isn't helping anyone either. They're just trying to hold onto power for powers sake.
Likewise, leders who take responsibility when they make a mistake shows that they are aware of the gravity of their position, and are willing to treat humans as more than just pawns in a game.
Flip-flopping just before an election to makes a candidate look more moderate, so as to carry a crucial swing state that would be destroyed by adherence to the candidate's traditional, long held view, doesn't strike me as admirable.
It strikes me as cynical.
But many might fall for it, no doubt, because few wish to admit to themselves that they've been making a mistake.
Cry for the future if they do fall for cynical flip-flops. We can't afford mistake after mistake after mistake, indefinitely.
@Noflaps said in #34:
> Sudden, unplanned overcrowding in towns and cities with insufficient resources IS A REAL ISSUE Talezassian, WHETHER OR NOT a "pet" disappears.
Stop trying to dodge the point about the pets and attempting to inflate this issue to immigration as a whole so you have a better chance of winning the argument. This argument started over the lie of pet disappearances, so it shall end with it as well.
> A candidate that tries to draw attention to that REAL ISSUE is addressing a REAL ISSUE. Shouldn't BOTH candidates address that REAL ISSUE?
If Trump wanted to address the issue of immigration, he could have used actual statistics or data rather than stating a racist and xenophobic lie that claims that Haitian migrants are eating pets.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.