Trump beats Hillary in polls (again). Basking in the rapid decline of the most crooked candidate ever to run for office, Trump happily shared the news with his Facebook followers. Follow Donald Trump now, if you want to make America Great Again.
Clinton probably hoped that her sketchy fake exoneration from FBI Director James Comey would slow her descent in the polls, but it hasn’t. That news has combined with other recent developments to place key battleground states in the Trump camp.
Trump Beats Hillary in Polls: More Insight
We can only marvel at Trump’s surging poll numbers. He’s fighting some powerful forces:
- George Soros and his various militant and violent organizations.
- The entire “mainstream” media, including all broadcast and cable propaganda outlets.
- The Democrat Party.
- The Republican branch of the Democrat Party.
- The Obama Regime.
- The Clinton’s and their organized crime organizations.
- So-called “Conservatives.”
Clinton spends hundreds of thousands of dollars daily in advertising and community agitating while Trump spends very little if anything. Still, Trump has a commanding lead in national polling as well as in so-called battleground states needed to win the Electoral College. Trump beats Hillary in the polls, with all those factors opposing him? That is astounding. No wonder the Democrats are freaking out.
Trump Beats Hillary in Polls: An Interesting Exchange
Here’s an interesting exchange that took place on Facebook regarding the news that Trump beats Hillary in
One commenter says, “Good to see Democrats Republicans and Independents are SICK AND TIRED of having our country run by a bunch of Elitist reprobate above-the-law THUGS!” Indeed, the remark has the right spirit. Trump beats Hillary in polls not because of his support from Republicans. Trump has redefined American politics.
Trump has redefined American politics. His support comes from a combination of multiple sectors:
- Working people.
- Gay, lesbian, and transgender people.
- Former Sanders supporters
- Unemployed Americans
In response to the commented, someone said, “Now it’s time to let a privileged, draft-dodging, narcissistic, white, billionaire, reality TV celebrity have a shot.”
Trump Beats Hillary in Polls: Responding to Insanity
The respondent most likely thinks she characterizes Trump derisively. Let’s see how he fits her description:
- Privileged? To a certain extent, yes. Is he ruling class privileged? No.
- Draft dodging? We’ve not heard that one before. Maybe he dodged the draft, maybe not.
- Narcissistic? Definitely.
- White? Yep.
- Billionaire? Yes.
- Reality TV celebrity? Yes.
So what does that mean? From the woman’s perspective, her description most likely illustrates why people shouldn’t vote for Trump. Suppose all those things she said were true. So what?
Let’s see how the list stacks up to Clinton:
- Privileged? Most definitely. She has the above-the-law privileges of the ruling elite.
- Draft dodging? Yep. She used the gender card to get out of military service. Were she interested in equality, she would have enlisted.
- Narcissistic? Definitely.
- White? Yep.
- Billionaire? Has she made that many speeches to her Wall Street enablers yet? Maybe.
- Reality TV celebrity? No. If she tried Reality TV, she’d get booted out on her ass, just like the voters seem poised to do.
Responding to such a retort seems difficult because the person did not articulate her conclusion. Constructing the argument from contextual cues, we could assume it goes something like this:
P1: People don’t want Elitist reprobate above-the-law THUGS running our country, so they support Trump.
P2: Trump is a privileged, draft-dodging, narcissistic, white, billionaire, reality TV celebrity.
∴ People are asking for something worse (Trump) than what they now have (Obama-Clinton).
The rules of logic say that we defeat an argument by attacking its premises, not its conclusion. We can attack the first premise by discussing the fallibility of poll numbers based on improper polling techniques, biased polling or the fact that people support Trump en masse doesn’t guarantee to translate into actual votes. Still, the poll numbers released by numerous polling firms seems to suggest a genuine downturn for Clinton.
Attacking the second premise seems to hold the most promise. Attack it based on the following:
- We don’t know that Trump dodged the draft.
- If dodging the draft matters, why did the respondent not complain about Bill Clinton, a known draft dodger?
- Yes, Trump is a billionaire, but he got it doing work during the course of business. None of the 2016 Democrat or Republican candidates ever had a real job. So, wouldn’t we do better having a president who knows how to operate in the real world than we have had with Obama and both Clinton’s who have gotten wealthy through corruption, fraud, and other crimes?
- Knowing that Hillary has raked in hundreds of millions in speaking fees (i.e. favor selling, influence peddling, and other payoffs) from the same Wall Street bankers she falsely claims to abhor and that she’s taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests laundered through the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, she very well might be a billionaire. The only difference between Trump and Obama-Clinton is that Trump legitimately earned his wealth.
- Attack the “white” part by asserting that Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) most likely is officially white as are all the candidates.
- Argue that being a reality TV celebrity was just another way Trump earned his wealth, unlike the Clintons and Obama who never earned anything legitimately.
- Finally, argue that Trump’s prior life as a businessman and reality TV star is far more accomplished than Obama and the Clintons who have nothing constructive in their past aside from community agitation and crime.
- Therefore, the conclusion does not follow that people shouldn’t look to Trump because he is worse than what we now have.
Destroying the premises of the woman’s argument using the above points requires much time and a lengthy back-and forth. We think the commenter wisely took a concise approach. He said, “Good idea, but the pools suggest that people would rather have Trump instead of the person you have in mind.”
In a single sentence, the commenter points out that the description provided by the woman does not apply to Trump, and the people now prefer Trump over Clinton or any fictitious persona a whacked-out-rabid-leftist can concoct.