>>73477711

a) "racism" is de facto meaningless

b) reciting history isn't bad, its good

c) "claiming that islam hates us" this is a symptom of delusion, its not a claim, its a fact

d) low energy ad homs

the guy should consider self-rope

Ask him for citations. There will be none.

>mfw this was actually shown on T.V...

File: tell me again.png (299 KB, 473x394) Image search: [Google]

299 KB, 473x394

>>73477711
Here's my response to pic related on facebook (the mentioned graph will be included in the next post)
>Here is some data presented around the number of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filings in the United States over time:
http://www.skadden.com/insights/trends-chapter-11-filings-venue-and-proposed-reforms

>In particular there is a nice graph (which is attached) given for Trump-sized public companies (with assets greater than $280 million) filing for bankruptcy. One can see that there is a baseline of about 20 Chapter 11 filings for these companies per year, peaking at ~100 filings at the front end of recessions (the dot-com and banking bubbles), averaging out at ~40 per year (as there are about 800 filings over a 20 year period).

>According to the US Census results from 2013, there were around 5.7 million firms in the US. Of those, there are about 9,300 firms that could be considered Trump-sized (a company of 1000+ employees). Assuming this is representative of the number of Trump-sized firms that existed each year since 1994, we have a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing rate of 40/9,300= 0.43% per year.

>Trump has cited over 500 businesses he is an executive with (which is a cause of concern for a president - as this can create a conflict of interest) as part of his candidacy filings. Let's use this as an assumption of the average number of businesses that he has started that exist at any one time.

>At 500 businesses, a failure rate of 0.4% per year means you could expect 2 of his businesses to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy PER YEAR. So, based on those assumptions, Trump is batting WELL above the average, considering he has 4 bankruptcies over DECADES.

>As for the fraud charges, he may well be guilty, but he hasn't been found guilty yet, and in the United States, we presume innocence, not guilt

>I'm not telling anyone to vote for any specific candidate, but I'm VERY interested in facts being presented with context.

>>73478145
>mfw no face
newfag get out. let the grownups talk.

File: bankruptcies.png (77 KB, 538x344) Image search: [Google]

77 KB, 538x344

>>73478187
And here's the graph I included.

>>73477711
It's not an argument to begin with; it's a series of lies/distortions/ad hominem attacks.

Since it's not an argument, we don't need to respond to it with arguments. That's not how this game works.

We should respond with our own insults and ad homs.

My response is that the guy who wrote this shit looks like a fucking pædofaggot.

>>73477711
None of those are arguments tho just a butthurt liberal sperging.

>>73477711
>My feelings are hurt: the arguement

File: donald-trump-just-took-his-most-commanding-lead-yet[1].jpg (985 KB, 4608x3456) Image search: [Google]

985 KB, 4608x3456

>>73478278
>>73478345
sure, but i'd still like to see some factual refutations of his assertions. this liberal spergs out on tv, and you know all the fucking tweens millenials, a lot of whom can actually vote, are sharing this shit on facebook. can act like that doesn't matter, but why not actually explain how and why his assertions are false or invalid?

>>73478745
Crying "racist!" over and over again isn't an assertion in any sense that involves facts; it's just a slur. To something like that, all you can really say is "Total bullshit. What a ridiculous lie. Probably made up by a retarded preteen or something. That's how obviously wrong it is." and put the burden back on the person making the claim.

For something like

>"I've watched you joyfully encourage violence and promise to pay the legal fees of those who commit violence on your behalf"

just hit back with videos like the Burlingame incident where a mob of screaming nuts were attacking a Trump supporter. "This is what Trump meant. He offered to help out people who defended themselves from violence. Very honorable."

And so on.

File: Donald_Trump_August_19,_2015_(cropped)[1].jpg (56 KB, 342x465) Image search: [Google]

56 KB, 342x465

>>73479191
so basically, "source?" i mean, i doubt everything he says it entirely false, probably just misrepresented like your example. to say "those 'facts' are misrepresented/out of context/not the whoole truth and therefore false" is a positive truth claim, no? obviously you can demand the person explains each point and the context, but it's more practical to simply explain how his claims are not accurate. people are more liable to believe him with out people who know he's full of shit explaining why. le burden of proof isn't usually going to matter when some asshat makes claims like this, and it get shared a million+ times on social media.

>>73477711
>>I've watched you retweet racist images
Who gives a fuck?
>>I've watched you retween racist lies
So?
>>I've watched you take 48 hours to disavow white supremacy
Proof?
>>I've watched you joyfully encourage violence and promise to pay the legal fees of those who commit violence on your behalf
And?
>>I've watched you advocate the use of torture and the murder of terrorist families
I would too, nothing wrong with this
>>I've watched you geefully tell the stories of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood
Proof?
>>I've watched compare refuees to snakes and claim that Islam hates us
Rapefugees are snakes. Islam sure hates your faggot ass, that's one thing it gets right.
>>Those of us who have been paying attention will not allow you to re-brand yourself
So?
>>You are not a unifier
So?
>>You are not presidential
Proof?
>>You are not a victim of the very anger that you've joyfully enflamed for months
He hasn't blown up people so that's very understandable
>>You are a man who has encouraged prejudice and violence in the pursuit of personal power
Proof?
>>And though your words will no doubt change over the next few months, you will always remain who you are.
So?

>>73479440
Okay. Look. The kind of person who shares this kind of thing is not operating on the basis of reason to begin with. They are operating on emotion. They share the image because it gives them a little self-righteous perk.

Since they aren't using reason, making appeals to reason will fail. That's not the right approach.

Instead, the goal is to tarnish the positive emotional association they have with the item being shared.

So, laugh at it. Say it's total bullshit and was produced by a creepy guy who looks like a pedo. Ask them why they are spreading a pedo-looking fucker's lies. Stop trying to operate at the level of factual argumentation. None of this is ABOUT facts.

>>73479797
>Since they aren't using reason, making appeals to reason will fail. That's not the right approach.
>Instead, the goal is to tarnish the positive emotional association they have with the item being shared.
The best way to do that would be to show documentation that everything he said is false. Even unreasonable people can't deny legit sources.

So, laugh at it. Say it's total bullshit and was produced by a creepy guy who looks like a pedo. Ask them why they are spreading a pedo-looking fucker's lies. Stop trying to operate at the level of factual argumentation. None of this is ABOUT facts.
If you do this, it only makes you look like you're wrong, that guy's right, and you know it. Laughing instead of counterpointing is what people who know they're wrong, do. What doesn't help is shouting "burden of proof!" while hillary takes the lead.

>>73480263
>The best way to do that would be to show documentation that everything he said is false.

No. That doesn't work. You don't seem to be grasping the psychology behind this. It's not reason-based. It does not RESPOND to reason.

These people aren't going to read something "factual" and think "Oh, very well then, I was wrong!" Fuck no. They will ignore contrary evidence and will mock you for going against their narrative.

>Even unreasonable people can't deny legit sources.

What the fuck man. They do all the fucking time. If reason-based arguments actually swayed people, our politics would look very different. But they fucking DON'T. Try to understand that.

>>73480496
>Try to understand that.
Calm down m8. It isn't because they literally can't comprehend what they read (not entirely). It's because of how information is circulated. They literally ignore sources of contrary information in order to preserve their bubble. They don't read it and not get it. They don't read it.
And the answer certainly isn't to answer with "omg so retarded look how gay this guy looks XD how can you believe this guy?"
it's either don't respond and let their cess filth naturally evolve and take its course, or put the information in their thread in hopes someone might actually read it and change their mind.

>>73480776
>It's because of how information is circulated. They literally ignore sources of contrary information in order to preserve their bubble. They don't read it and not get it. They don't read it.

>>73480496
>These people aren't going to read something "factual" and think "Oh, very well then, I was wrong!" Fuck no. They will ignore contrary evidence

>>73481269
It's all good and well to ignore stupid people under the excuse/assumption that literally none of them can comprehend simple, contrary facts. But these people are going to vote.

>>73481506
It's not about being able to comprehend simple fact, it's about wanting to comprehend simple fact.

Like you said, people WANT to preserve their bubble. Sometimes logic and reason can't breach that bubble.

>>73481675
If Hillary wins by 0.1% of the vote, aren't you gonna feel kind of bad in assuming that not even 0.1% of social media libtards would have listened to reasonable, fact-supported objections?

>>73481790
No, I've tried. I've tried to talk to liberals about it, time and time again, and everytime I get shot down with retarded shit like the shit you just posted.

Every time I post anything pro-Trump it is met with shit like this from multiple people. I get crucified. Fuck it, if it's meant to be it's meant to be, I'll talk to the people who I think have an open mind, and ignore the rest.

If Hillary wins by 0.1%, then oh well, that's what the libtards wanted, let it runs it's course and let everything I told them come true.

>>73482015
>let it runs it's course
its*

File: 1462654018894.png (429 KB, 399x614) Image search: [Google]

429 KB, 399x614

>>73477711
So when does he present arguments?

>>73478187
>>73478229

>blah blah IM WHITE blah blah
>[muh empirical data]
>"I don't know what poverty is like"

That's nice. Don't you have a yacht to take out to sea and die in?

>>73482693
>le whites don't know what poverty is meme
>somehow at the same time
>le rednecks are drunk, poor, trailer trash whites

Cognitive Dissonance