Fun game: study critical thinking in any capacity, even if it’s just an hour or two with a textbook. Then read this article and find the fallacies. Don’t turn it into a drinking game or you’ll die.
This whole thing is literally a list of anecdotes and cherrypicked comments from a floppy candidate, mixed with blatant, unsupported lies (“Trump has direction”, for example), arguments depending on incorrect definitions, and poor reasoning. You want more detail? Very well then…
For the most part, I agree with your arguments against Hillary. She’s a horrible candidate with no right to call herself a Democrat or a liberal in any capacity. That being said, there’s no guarantee that Trump wouldn’t do the same things. Granted, there’s no guarantee that he would. That’s the thing about having an inexperienced candidate: we don’t have real records to predict this sort of thing. Either way, an argument against Hillary is not the same as an argument for Trump.
Then there’s “Trump has direction. Precision can be acquired.” You don’t actually explain this. As I said, he has changed his mind multiple times on a number of different topics. Even on the topic of whether or not he would stay for an entire presidential term, his comment was “I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens.” In the quote you provided, he stated that he’ll prioritize the income of Americans, but he’s stated before that minimum wage is “too high”. Then again, he also said he supports increasing it to $10, so who knows what he actually thinks? (For the record, the link leads to an article addressing both statements.)
His foreign policy is summed up here and isn’t as peaceful as you want to make it sound. For example, he supports keeping troops in Afghanistan despite claiming to want to end the war there, and despite the fact that a military presence in a location where there is no war may still be enough to incite violence. Then there’s the fact that he doesn’t seem to understand that there is no way to simply make a country pay for something that a different country did to it. Though it’s different, it still bears similarities to what the Treaty of Versailles attempted to do. And we all know how well that went.
The economic outlook section isn’t about Trump. It only states the issues that need to be addressed. Neither of the major candidates address them adequately or consistently. Bernie did, but he’s out of the running. The section on government is even less helpful in giving a pro-Trump argument. No, he isn’t a professional politician, but that doesn’t mean he won’t ruin the country like one.
“Why has political correctness so aggressively being injected into legislative and judiciary and Executive agendas?” In the few instances where it has, it hasn’t been taken seriously. That is, unless you’re talking about anti-discrimination policies, in which case that isn’t a free speech issue; it’s an issue about protecting the basic human rights of minorities. Political correctness is largely kept separate from law, except in guidelines (not actual laws) about avoiding inflammatory and therefore unproductive language and behavior within congressional and courtroom settings. For the most part, political correctness is a form of informal social control. Rules on social media websites don’t affect your freedom of speech in any way. Why? Because freedom of speech is your right to speak your opinions without the government doing anything about it, not your right to make bigoted statements without another person calling you out for it. Peaceful protestors who get arrested despite not breaking any laws are having their freedom of speech violated. Donald Trump being told he shouldn’t say something or someone who makes hateful statements being banned from Twitter is not having any rights violated. The president can’t really do anything about political correctness as a social phenomenon.
I, personally, see Trump as a bigot in multiple ways. This is not because of how the media portrays him, but because of his actual statements and behavior in debates and interviews.
Every argument you gave against him being a bigot is purely anecdotal. Polls tell a different story. On the last link, it could be worthwhile to take a look at all of the different polls. Women I have spoken to have mixed opinions about whether or not they are offended by Trump. Perhaps your social circle is simply biased and you’re only getting one side of things. Speaking of biased social circles, to put it bluntly, I’m very queer. So are most of my friends. You spoke to “a transgender person” and treated it like an odd thing, whereas I know plenty of people who are trans, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, etc. Sorry to disappoint you and the one transgender person you spoke to, but a majority of them despise Trump. And, as someone who works with refugees, I’ve worked with plenty who also happen to be Muslim. A lot of them are afraid. They’ve faced increasing harassment and worse as Trump’s popularity has grown. You may say he’s, in your words, “an equal opportunity offender”, but if he’s saying what he means then you may as well call him a misanthrope. If not, then hypocrite could work instead. Either way, it’s a lot shorter.
I’ll agree that we need a better strategy for helping refugees, and none of this year’s potential main candidates had one. That being said, I have yet to see Trump express any interest in actually helping them. Banning them will only cause them to go to either a country that accepts refugees but has fewer resources at their disposal or where they came from. You know, those countries they’ve been escaping for a good reason? It isn’t even a safety issue for us. As it is right now, all refugees to the US have to undergo vigorous screenings and background checks before they’re allowed to enter the country. We don’t have any more of a problem with Muslim refugees to the US committing crimes or acts of terrorism than we do with white Christians. The difference is that the former is less common on US soil and more publicized than the latter. The reason Trump is “unmolested by the legacy of those issues” is because of his complete lack of experience in office.
Your section about the supreme court is basically a non-sequitor.
As for big banks needing to be broken up, yes it is necessary. However, you have provided no adequate explanation as to why Trump would break up financial institutions that are more likely to benefit him as a business owner than they are harm him. On that note, you also stated that his multiple business failures and (few, temporary) successes make him qualified. Why? What about them make him qualified? You have to support and defend that statement if you’re going to make it.
The section on Trump’s foreign policy contains nothing he hasn’t contradicted and should have been included with your earlier section on his foreign policy for organizational purposes.
The first part of the “Trump vs ___” section is another non-sequitor. The second part I’ve already addressed in passing, but allow me to say it again: many people hate Trump based on direct quotes, the behavior of his followers, his behavior, his policies, his multiple rape allegations…it isn’t all about media portrayal. The media demonizes anyone who could change the status quo one way or another, yes, but you don’t see very many liberals against Trump also speaking out against activists just because the mass media only portrays protests that turn violent. This is because there’s so much more information that goes into developing an opinion.
Now for the Miscellany, which you may as well have named your entire article for its poor organization:
- There is no “both sides” about this. Political ideologies are complex and varied. That being said, the fact that you filled your article with biased sources and then complained about bias lends nothing to your arguments.
- I’ll read the link later, since it looks like an interesting read. Thanks for that! That being said, if you’re trying to use it to support your article, you should include key points from it.
- “Free college is a lie, because…College as a 4 year program is a lie.” Of course, there’s more to it than free college for that exact reason. It’s not intended as free college: it’s tax-supported post-secondary public education for associates’ and bachelors’ degrees. People already know that when they hear “free college”. Nobody expects it to cover all of the education for someone who wants a PhD. Free college isn’t a lie, it’s a way to make sure we don’t spend too long on a familiar concept.
- Oh boy, another person complaining about being told they have white privilege. Look, “white privilege” just means that there are things that we, as white people, don’t have to worry about that other races do have to worry about. It’s intended to increase awareness of how lucky we are, not to increase conflict and violence. Yes, the people who run the system are the cause of the problem, and we should and do acknowledge the privilege of the wealthy, but you’re not showing a proper understanding of the concept of white privilege itself. It isn’t there so we can point to it as a culprit. It’s there so we can say “look how lucky we are to have this privilege. But wait, these should be universal rights, not privileges”. The fact that discourse includes concepts of white privilege isn’t what’s causing tension and increasing violence. Racial violence in America is a far more complex issue than that.
Overall, I’ve asked people to completely re-research and rewrite better, more convincing articles than this, and that’s only as a casual proofreader. There are many things I haven’t addressed, but I’ve already spent too much time on this.