Less than two weeks ago I wrote a post “Hating Hillary” where I gave my take on the causes and the history of “Hillary Hatred” in America, that began with the election of Bill Clinton. Yesterday I read an article at Alternet that serves as a companion piece. Titled “How the Media Manufactured the Public’s Anger at Hillary Clinton” it is written by Neal Gabler from Moyers.com and I think it makes excellent points about how the press has been more than complicit in creating a negative narrative toward Hillary Clinton that are well worth pondering.
This is how it begins:
“We all know the story. This is the hate election, the lesser-of-two-evils election, the most-unpopular-candidates-in-the-history-of-modern-presidential-politics election. Everybody hates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. If only we had different candidates from whom to choose, the pundits say, as they roll their eyes and emit heavy sighs! No doubt, you don’t like either one of them very much. You will pull the voting lever with resignation. Or so we are told.
But I began to speculate on how much of the Hillary hatred at least (Trump was very unpopular as reflected in polling data from the get-go) was driven by the press coverage, how many Americans were effectively brainwashed into hating Hillary or felt peer pressure to join the anti-Hillary chorus because the media kept telling us how awful she was, and we didn’t want to be outliers to the hate brigade.
And while there is no definitive way to measure the impact of press coverage on public opinion, I think a fairly powerful case can be made that the media narrative created the media narrative – yet another case of political post-modernism.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t unpopular when she announced her decision to run in April 2015. If you look at the Gallup survey in March of last year, 50 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, only 39 percent an unfavorable one. So there was clearly no deep reservoir of Clinton hatred among the general public at the time. On the contrary: Americans liked her; they liked her quite a bit.
Already by June, however, her favorability had not only taken a hit. It had plummeted. By July, according to Gallup, her favorability hit an all-time low with only 38 percent positively and 57 percent viewing her negatively — putting her 19 points underwater.
So what happened?”
Neal Gabler goes on to detail his view that our nation’s mainstream media has actually drummed up the hatred of Hillary Clinton, less as a result of animus, but as the result of trying to create a seemingly even handed narrative. I think his logic is compelling. Follow this link “How the Media Manufactured the Public’s Anger at Hillary Clinton”, read the rest of Gabler’s piece and let me know what you think of his premise.
ElephantTail 
October 30, 2016 at 3:54 pm
I think you are grasping at straws to make the candidate you are voting for seem more palatable to you. I don’t understand the apparently widespread need for people to feel like they aren’t voting for a reprehensible person; it isn’t like we are given any other choice in this election. There is no reason to lie to yourself and engage in denial, a clear-eyed vote for the lesser of two evils, at least as your mind sees it, is fine. You long ago decided Hillary was the lesser of two evils, and certainly Trump has done absolutely nothing to mitigate that decision and plenty since then to solidify that decision. What is your emotional motivation now to pretend maybe Hillary is a good person?
I don’t get it. She is still a pathological liar, two-faced by her own admission, and clearly politically compromised by seeking personal wealth at every opportunity. Yet in the short term, Hillary is also clearly the better choice for this term of president. Why can’t you just accept reality for what it is? Why must you manufacture rose colored glasses? Won’t those glasses just disappoint you, should the time come when she betrays the middle class in favor of the elites? Personally I’d rather just be pleasantly surprised if she actually accomplishes something that decreases their predations.
(I doubt it, but of course that is why I’d be pleasantly surprised.)
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 6:43 pm
MM,
I hadn’t realized that you deem yourself the repository of all wisdom, truth and self knowledge. You have the right to disagree with me all you want, but to charge that I am deluding myself is somewhat offensive. It is said that when logic fails try ad hominem and it seems from your comment that you’ve ran out of logic. 🙂
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 7:13 pm
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 7:15 pm
For one thing Hillary’s supporters are not deplorable like this man and his fellow chanters.
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 7:16 pm
On the other hand, maybe Clinton really is a deeply flawed figure – just not as flawed as Trump.
” … I began to speculate on how much of the Hillary hatred at least (Trump was very unpopular as reflected in polling data from the get-go) was driven by the press coverage, how many Americans were effectively brainwashed into hating Hillary or felt peer pressure to join the anti-Hillary chorus because the media kept telling us how awful she was, … ”
Meh, how hard is to get people to think less of someone they perceive to be so privileged that person flouts perfectly reasonable rules with impunity?
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 7:34 pm
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/10/29/trump-fan-just-hung-two-black-dummies-tree-front-yard/ People need to vote against Trump and stop legitimizing these activities.
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 7:37 pm
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/10/29/trump-fan-just-hung-two-black-dummies-tree-front-yard/ Whether or not one hates Clinton we need to not legitimize these activities and vote against Trump.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 7:43 am
Mike: No ad hominem there, I think the problem actually is about the person. I have not run out of logic, I am making a reasoned observation about human nature. FWIW, as I said earlier, I was wrong about Trump having a plan, playing Rope-a-Dope, etc. I admit it, without caveat; I believed at the time it was the only plausible route to a win and he was acting within the parameters needed to execute that path. But he did not.
In general I hold great disdain for wisdom and anyone that claims it or accepts the label; I want none of that con game.
I do not deem myself the repository of all truth and self knowledge; but as I imagine your own profession would assert, a rational and observant person standing outside of you may be able to discern patterns in the behavior of others that even they do not realize are present. The pattern I see happening now, including with you, is whitewashing a bad forced choice to pretend it isn’t as bad as it is, and exaggerating the evils of the alternative to make it seem deathly worse than it would have been.
Why? Why do people feel compelled to do this? Beats me, I am not the repository of self-knowledge!
But the problem with lies, even lies to one’s self, is that lies present an illusion instead of reality, and taking actions within that illusion as IF it were reality may be dangerous to relationships, finances, future emotional states or even life itself. This is not some unsupported pronouncement of wisdom, this is just the logic of how lies have the potential to harm people.
I believe you are now lying to yourself about Hillary and accepting cherry picked data to convince yourself she is not as bad as you thought, helped along by media that will do the same. I see no reason to defend her by pretending what she has done never really happened, that it was all somehow manufactured by the media. It was not. She is an incompetent, corrupt, reflexive liar. We are trapped into making her President. The result will be a continuation of the destruction of the financial lives of the middle class and the poor, as we are all driven ever closer to slavery by the added favors and new permissions that she and the Democratic Party will perpetuate for the CMIC. She will be the nominee again in four years; meaning no matter who wins, we non-elites will be robbed and screwed for at least 8 years, and likely for 12 or 16 years. People over 59 probably need not worry, but I expect we will be the last generation to enjoy retirement income and health care like yours. I suspect Americans under 55 are about to be financially sacrificed by Hillary to the gods of money; trapped in cycles of debt that lead to lives of servitude; because just like those 80 year old Walmart greeters (a euphemism for shoplifting security personnel) SS income won’t cover their survival anymore.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 8:51 am
“I think you are grasping at straws to make the candidate you are voting for seem more palatable to you.”
MM,
Grasping at straws? Do you perhaps mean that I’ve been in a state of amnesiac fugue where I’ve forgotten all I’ve written about the Clintons? I think not: https://mikespindell.wordpress.com/?s=Bill+clinton
“She is still a pathological liar, two-faced by her own admission, and clearly politically compromised by seeking personal wealth at every opportunity.”
That two faced by her own admission thing came from the Wikileaks E mail where she was saying that she maintained a public and a private persona. If one were suffused with such Clinton hatred, bred by superficial readings of press reports (such as yourself for instance), then they no doubt would grasp at that report as evidence of duplicity. If one were so presciently and dispassionately observing the objective reality (such as myself) then they would completely understand that Hillary was honestly identifying in herself the common human trait of providing a public and private face.
MM, If you don’t get the irony and satire in that paragraph above, then there is little more for me to say but that I’m merely presenting a burlesque of the the way your comment addresses me. The lack of logic evinced by your comments is that you put yourself on a “higher, more objective” plane in order to sit in judgment of my mental state. At the same time you seem not to want to actually, logically, address the points actually raised in my post. There is the ad hominem. To spell it out further, you attack my ability to think objectively, rather than the actual argument I’ve raised..
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 11:12 am
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 11:57 am
>> they would completely understand that Hillary was honestly identifying in herself the common human trait
This is an example of the whitewashing I am talking about; taken along with the evidence of her disdain for various protesters and her other politically expedient flip-flops and outright lies (for a recently exposed example, she said she was “receiving enormous pressure from women and children’s groups” to make bankruptcy more difficult when said groups were uniformly strongly opposed to that legislation and E Warren herself briefed Clinton on that opposition and concluded Senator Clinton’s had received too much in donations from the credit card industry to vote against their wishes) I believe Hillary’s “private face” is so at odds with her public pronouncements that it constitutes lying about what she believes and lying about what she will work to accomplish.
And NO, it was not about a public and private persona,: “In one speech given at the National Multi-Housing Council in 2013, Clinton asserted that one needs a “both a public and a private position” on policy.” [emphasis mine].
The transcript reads: “But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”
Hillary believes the corruption of back room deals is too much for the public to handle; and her public position is effectively a lie that hides that corruption from the public.
Now YOU are engaging in an ad hominem attack by accusing me of some belief I am on a higher and more objective plane than you. I am not the one trying to convert “a public and private position on policy” into a public and private persona that everybody engages in. They are not equivalent.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Hi – I always read and enjoy your blogs. Thank you. Just wanting to pass on a podcast I listened to and thought you’d like to hear but I suspect you already have. The Lesser Evil, a podcast from Sam Harris Stay well, Donna
>
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 5:28 pm
To your borrowed premise: The story claims the press was unfairly focused on emails. Says who? The author? It was obvious to anybody with a brain that Hillary Clinton was lying when she said she did not want to carry more than one device (the Secret Service carried five difference communications devices for her; people in her position do not carry their own devices and are not responsible for the security of anything including their own credentials, she was not so dumb she might make a mistake and use the wrong device, and I could go on). It was a reflexive lie she thought might appeal to the ignoramuses she thinks we are. As it turned it she also lied when she said no classified material was sent or discussed on the server. As it turned out she also lied when she said the 33,000 emails deleted were all personal emails; several thousand of those were found in the in-boxes of other officials, sent from Clinton’s private email address, and backed up in the routine backups of government servers. At least three of those email chains were discussing classified programs.
Clinton’s unpopularity when she is in the spotlight is not about misogyny, it is about her lying, and focusing on her lying is not some hit-job by the media, it is the media doing its job. The disproportionate amount of negative press, even by FOX, is a result of her doing something objectively wrong and then lying to cover her tracks. And it is also objectively true that far less famous officers and enlisted personnel have been prosecuted and convicted for less, making the lack of any recommendation for legal action suspect and giving it the appearance of a politically driven decision for an elite above the law.
That is combined with a theory the author does not address at all, but which is well proven by Nixon’s popularity polls, George HW Bush’s polls, Carter’s polls and even Bill Clinton’s polls: When people think a player has left the stage, they have a tendency to inflate their opinion and be “nice” in favorability polling; because it doesn’t really matter. But should the player return to the stage, particularly in a negative light, they stop being nice, they are reminded of why their approval was low, those many years ago, and they revert to their previous, negative favorability ratings, perhaps with added emphasis if they believe she is lying again.
His premise is fatally flawed; the negative coverage was no invention, it was legitimately negative because she was transparently lying about it and covering something up from the start, and in the end it was proven she objectively lied about how innocuous it all was. As was said before, Colin Powell also used a private email account; (the only other SoS to do so) but he never installed a private server, and there is no evidence he ever sent a single classified email by that account. More on that “one device” lie, from a PBS investigation: “In November 2010, the report found, Clinton’s deputy chief of operations mentioned that her emails to State Department workers were not getting through to their accounts. The recommendation? That she consider a State Department email address, or that she release the private email address, so that her notes would not be blocked by a spam filter. Clinton responded, ‘Let’s get a separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.’ “ In other words, she was perfectly willing to get another device so she could continue using a private server; the complete opposite of what she claimed when she thought she could trick us.
It isn’t the media, it is Clinton. She lies, and poorly, and it doesn’t take long for people to see through it.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 7:22 pm
And, she “smells like boiled cabbage, urine and farts.”
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 8:52 pm
She does, indeed, she does.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 9:05 pm
And let me also add that plenty of politicians have found political doom when they were found to not be in private as they claimed to be in public. Mitt Romney having been the latest one of those with his 47% comments.
When Trump’s tape showing him using the N word come out, that would be proof that he is indeed as racist as he is thought to be privately, which he claims is not what he is both privately and publicly.
We call hypocrites or liars those we find to hold 2 opposite or different views based on their audiences. If Hillary states something, sells herself as that something, and is found out to be lying about being that something (yes, it is lying), the label liar and/or hypocrite does indeed apply.
If what people think most of here is that she is neither genuine nor truthful, and she proves it with her own comments, really, what else is there but to accept it? Why pin the blame that she is a liar and and a hypocrite on people who are not responsible for who she is and what she does??
Why?
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 9:32 pm
@Po: “If what people think most of here is that she is neither genuine nor truthful, and she proves it with her own comments, ”
There are many of us who felt Clinton’s professed support for some positions was not accurate or reliable – that she would renege when ever politically convenient.
Recent hacked emails demonstrate we were not paranoid. Clinton thinks it is perfectly acceptable to lie about her positions to gain political support.
Let me emphasize here, we are not talking about a politician who is clear about her positions while putting the best face on them to different groups – we are talking about a politician who intentionally misleads on important issues in order to take action for her favored elite true constituency.
Analogous to a social conservative, Clinton is a ‘social’ liberal with a few favored liberal positions. At heart she is at best a liberal republican but much further to the right on some issues. It is a safe bet she will turn on issues such as financial regulation and TPP as soon as her political position is secure.
Still, in all that, Better Clinton who at least seems to believe in science and rational thought, than Trump and his racist totalitarian cronies.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 9:46 pm
There are many of us who felt Clinton’s professed support for some positions was not accurate or reliable – that she would renege when ever politically convenient.
Recent hacked emails demonstrate we were not paranoid. Clinton thinks it is perfectly acceptable to lie about her positions to gain political support.
Let me emphasize here, we are not talking about a politician who is clear about her positions while putting the best face on them to different groups – we are talking about a politician who intentionally misleads on important issues in order to take action for her favored elite true constituency.
Exactly, BFM! That is the problem, and that is the ONLY problem. Blaming the people for disliking being lie to is pretty odd.
AS for Still, in all that, Better Clinton who at least seems to believe in science and rational thought, than Trump and his racist totalitarian cronies.” if we are talking about on a personal level, or perhaps on a state level, a governor, congressperson or senatorial office, I agree with you. However, on the larger scope that is the presidency, where the damage is multiplied and all-encompassing, I still cannot see why we should reward a lying presidential candidate with a legacy of double dealing and selling us off for the benefit of her patrons with our vote simply because she is not Trump?
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 11:41 pm
po: “I still cannot see why we should reward a lying presidential candidate with a legacy of double dealing and selling us off for the benefit of her patrons with our vote simply because she is not Trump?”
I can only speak for my self, but I understand this decision. I have been fortunate myself. But I have known some who had to make basic decisions to determine whether they ate or went hungry, whether they were warm enough or woke up shivering in the middle of the night.
I believe Trump will do great damage to our democratic institutions, to our judicial system, to our economy, not to mention the crazy talk about alliances and nuclear weapons. I believe real people and their families will be hurt by a Trump administration.
I have no doubt that Clinton will have her favorites. But I also believe that the major institutions of government, the courts, and democracy will remain. I believe that individuals and families have a much better chance with Clinton than with Trump.
We are talking about real differences in the lives of millions. People have a better chance with Clinton. With Clinton, we all have a chance to preserve till we have real choice in the future.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 7:04 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/keith-olbermann-comey-and-chaffetz-conspired-to-hand-election-by-treachery-to-donald-trump/ “eith Olbermann called for the immediate resignation of both FBI Director James Comey and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) for their handling of the latest Hillary Clinton email revelations.
A furious Olbermann said Comey and Chaffetz — who had rescinded his endorsement of Donald Trump over a hot mic recording that revealed him boasting of sexual assaulting women — appear to have colluded on the release of the statement Friday afternoon for partisan political gain.
“Why did (Chaffetz) late Wednesday night suddenly pivot back to supporting Trump?” Olberman said. “Why did he reverse 36 hours before Comey’s historically slovenly, craven note that left Pandora’s box unjustly unlocked so that a sniveling little coward like Chaffetz could peek inside (and) then deliberately exaggerate what he saw and fuel Donald Trump’s latest delusion rage.”
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 7:20 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 He deducted somebody else”s losses.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 7:39 am
po: At this point I have to agree with BFM. I believed, incorrectly, that Trump had a viable plan for winning the election. I had to stop believing that three weeks ago. Up until then, his actions were consistent with a winning strategy of late onset mud slinging, but he would have had to start that effort four or five weeks before the election to overcome voter inertia, and he has not. It is too late for that, IMO no amount of negative advertising or lies by Trump can overcome that inertia before Nov 8th. I doubt any new revelations or leaks about Clinton can tip the scales, either.
The ramifications of that change my opinion on Trump; I no longer think he’d just be another Republican President (which I could suffer through to prevent Hillary from taking office).
If he isn’t smart enough to, by his own efforts, to make a credible showing against a candidate as thoroughly disliked as Hillary, then it means his lack of self control and his impulses are not just an act by a clever actor.
If they are the real deal and his whole strategy is a childish insistence that he be President, in that mental state he is as unfit to be President as GW Bush, and the consequences would be even worse for the middle class in America and civilians in the Middle East than the World War begun by Bush/Cheney, continued by Obama, and to be continued by Hillary. They only seek political dominance over the populace so they can steal their natural resources; Trump seems to seek indiscriminate destruction of Muslims and minorities throughout the world, on his whim, without any regard to the consequences in terrorism against the USA and on home soil.
We are forced to choose between two people I am convinced will commit crimes in office. Hillary is in it for personal enrichment, the ego of being the first, and a strong affinity for the sociopathic ultra-elite. She will lie to us and betray us, her economic policies will be a disaster for any class of Americans that cannot contribute thousands to campaigns on a regular basis and never miss it.
Trump’s crimes will be out of narcissistic egomania, impulsiveness, and will endanger us, and foreign lives, even more. Early on I had reason to believe his appeal to rednecks and lack of a filter was a cynical act to win the nomination, but a failure to pivot and the continuation of unnecessary lies and insults (he already won the nomination) means, to me, that he has actually lost a filter he once had. Perhaps old age has set in, but it makes no difference anymore. He would be worse than Hillary, both in the short term and (more important to me) in the long term.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 8:12 am
“If they are the real deal and his whole strategy is a childish insistence that he be President, in that mental state he is as unfit to be President as GW Bush, and the consequences would be even worse for the middle class in America and civilians in the Middle East than the World War begun by Bush/Cheney, continued by Obama, and to be continued by Hillary. They only seek political dominance over the populace so they can steal their natural resources; Trump seems to seek indiscriminate destruction of Muslims and minorities throughout the world, on his whim, without any regard to the consequences in terrorism against the USA and on home soil.”
MM,
Um….Yes….It seems I’ve been making that point all along.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 8:16 am
Po,
As a prophet that neither of us fully subscribe to, was said to have said quite brilliantly: “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone”.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 8:18 am
SwM,
That Keith suggestion linking Trump and Chaffetz is new to me, but it makes perfect sense in explaining Chaffetz’ actions.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 8:56 am
Perhaps I’m not close to being the prescient political commentator that I strive to be because at my age I work mainly from my instincts and a bare modicum of research. This post above was my utilizing Neal Gabler’s work to expand on observations I’ve been having through this election cycle. I do feel some gratification though when commentators that I admire as my superiors draw the same conclusions I’ve drawn. Heather “Digby” Parton is one of the smartest observers around. Here is her take on the media narrative in this election. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/01/in-the-media-narrative-hillary-clinton-is-corrupt-so-what-the-hell-is-donald-trump/
Her conclusion, after her cogent argument lays out the reasons for it. MM and Po take note:
“All of this raises a question the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman raised two months ago: How is it possible that Clinton’s email brouhaha has marked her as thoroughly corrupt and dishonest, while Trump’s monumentally nefarious past, present and future are overlooked? Waldman’s assumption is probably the correct one: The narratives were set early in the campaign cycle, with Trump being the bigoted, crazy one and Clinton being the corrupt one. That’s just how the media frames the contest.
They got it wrong. Yes, Trump is the crazy, bigoted one. He’s also a misogynist and worse. But he’s also the corrupt one, perhaps even more than most of us who had already understood that ever imagined. Considering that partial list of conflicts, misdeeds and legal entanglements I just laid out, President Trump is unimaginable.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 11:02 am
“All of this raises a question the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman raised two months ago: How is it possible that Clinton’s email brouhaha has marked her as thoroughly corrupt and dishonest, while Trump’s monumentally nefarious past, present and future are overlooked? ”
There is the fundamental fallacy right there.
Trump has not been over looked at all. To any reasonable person, and all but maybe 40% of die-hard deplorables, Trump has been utterly destroyed.
But none of that means that we should overlook the outrageous conduct of Clinton.
‘Digby’s’ analysis amounts to little more than ‘quick look at bad, bad Trump and pay no attention to Clinton’. What nonsense.
Clinton took the strongest measures we have eve seen to assure her emails could not be collected and cataloged by DOS, as required by law. Her procedure resulted in the reckless exposure of real, secrets vital to safety and security of individuals involved, if not to our nation.
It is hard to imagine actions more breathtakingly corrupt.
She attempted to make it impossible for citizens to make reasonable, lawful inquiries regarding her official acts. And in doing so she made it clear she cares not a bit about the safety and lives of those who would assist this nation.
If only, if only we had a choice besides the ignorant, insane Donald Trump.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 11:23 am
>> It seems I’ve been making that point all along.
Without any credible objective evidence that it was true, in my opinion. Your position has been no different than the emotional reactions of millions of others merely disgusted by Trump. Objectively speaking:
1) The fact that he did win the Republican nomination using little more than insults and headline grabbing should have been considered, most plausibly, as an intentional strategy of pandering to a base of morons that we now know constitutes about 48% of the American population. The fact that at every turn he was effectively focused on eliminating the biggest threat to his victory should have been considered, most plausibly, as evidence this was a calculated strategy, not happenstance. This is not how Trump was viewed by the media or most people appalled by and reacting emotionally to his rhetoric. Such people in thrall to their emotions and predicting doomsday scenarios without any objective evidence are simply not credible; as far as I am concerned they might as well be talking about the Rapture or Extraterrestrial Invasion or Zombies or Witches.
2) Presuming (1) that Trump was, most likely, conning a base of morons into nominating him, the one and only next step would be to make himself the more palatable candidate than Clinton, to MORE than that moronic base. That would have to be executed in the swing states, and he would have to re-ingratiate himself to the 25% of Republican women he had alienated. Rehabilitating himself (he had months) would not be enough to win, but it could get him within 1% in the swing states. The other necessary pincer would be to depress the Democrat turnout with a massive paid negative blitz against Hillary in the swing states.
The fact that neither pincer was even attempted is, to me, the objective evidence strong enough to convince me that (1), despite looking like an intentional strategy, was not. It is that, and only that, which convinces me I was wrong. No amount of emotional alarmism and threats of Hitlerism influence that conclusion; my hypothesis is wrong because it failed to predict a necessary outcome.
Every year, some financial pundits predict a market crash, some others predict a market boom, and yet another group predicts the market will just more or less do what it has been doing with normal fluctuations. Every year, whichever group guessed right touts their prescience and market savvy (or shuts up and refuses to admit they were wrong). But they aren’t really right in any useful sense, are they?
That is what I find on the Internet, too; a vanishingly small few may admit when they were wrong (as I have here on this topic), the rest trumpet when they guessed right and will never, ever admit when they were wrong.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 2:07 pm
Yes, BFM/ MM, however, the fallacy we keep getting caught into, which is sold by the Clintonistas is that false dichotomy Clinton/Trump. They want to keep framing this debate as Trump versus non-Trump. And it is worth remembering something essential that is lost among liberals, that for the half of this country who is not represented by Hillary, her policies and her cohort, this is a matter of life and death. They do not want the establishment or any of its representative, they may rather burn the country down that leave it in the hands of those whom they view as the cause of many of their problems.
They feel they have their back against the wall, and either things change now or the country forevermore goes down the drain. To them, no one better represents the face of their struggle than Hillary. And it is worth seeing that they have a right to that conclusion, for it is partially true.
So, to them, Trump is the one who is not the establishment, same as Bernie was same to many. And just as we can allow our clintonistas the right to refuse to hear anything that challenges their dedication/abdication to their candidate, we should allow the other side to feel similarly about Trump. People close ranks when they let their emotions, rather than their intellect dictate their adherence to one group or another. The more they hear a counter argument, the more stubborn they are in the partisanship. Both sides are doing just that right now.
As for the claim that Trump is getting a pass about his corruption, it is indeed fallacious, and downright wrong. Additionally, as I said previously, Trump’s corruption is enabled by the system, it is business corruption and personal corruption, along with being mainly domestic corruption, all of which enabled by the economic and tax system. Hillary, on the other hand, practices institutional corruption. Hers is not just using economic loopholes, it is using legal loopholes, alongside bending the law as an elected official, to benefit her and hers. So while Trump’s corruption affect few people, Hillary’s affect the whole nation and our unborn children for generations.
The corruption that led to her pushing for increased criminalization on behalf of the for profit prison industry? Destroyed the black community.
The corruption on behalf of banks and wall street? we are still living its consequences.
The corruption on behalf of military-industral complex? Iraq and now Libya.
The corruption on behalf of the energy industry? Fracking and oil extraction, including pushing for war abroad to acquire resources, including pushing for a no fly zone in Syria that is sure to usher nuclear war.
What is left?
Additionally, in light of Hillary’s insistence we ratchet it up against Russia and China, and bomb Iran, versus Trump saying let us negotiate with our enemies, it is clear that she is the more present danger to the globe.
Finally, Hillary is the slowly boiling water that lulls the frog to sleep until it is too late.
Trump is the hot water that causes said frog to jump out.
Muslims, women, Latinos, conservatives and Republicans… there is no doubt in my mind that president Trump would come with a built in opposition ready to go after him.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Great essay about this issue. https://www.thenation.com/article/note-to-america-dont-be-so-sure-youve-put-trump-behind-you/
“Before the Brexit referendum, liberals broadly dismissed Leave voters as ignorant, angry, and bigoted. Some of them were undoubtedly all three. But that’s not primarily what was driving many of them. It took the Brexit result for the nation to pay attention to communities devastated by neoliberal globalization. Had Remain won, those who were forgotten would have remained forgotten.
True, politicians have drawn mostly the wrong conclusions: condemning the free movement of people rather than the free movement of capital. Nonetheless, regions long ignored, accents rarely heard, and issues seldom raised are traveling from the margins to the mainstream of British politics.
Similarly, if Hillary Clinton wins, that should not blind us to some of the themes that have made Trump’s candidacy viable. In Muncie, Indiana, where I have spent most of this election season, huge manufacturing plants have closed since the passage of NAFTA, leaving one-third of the town in poverty. And while Trump’s base is not particularly poor, a significant portion of the nation is desperate. It’s not difficult to see why. The price of everything apart from labor has shot up in the past 40 years, while inequality has grown and social mobility has slumped. Trump’s original Brexit strategy of targeting Rust Belt towns in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin may not have worked electorally, but what he identified remains a politically salient fault line that doesn’t just go away if Clinton wins. If these problems are not tended to, a less erratic and more focused right-wing populist than Trump could easily exploit them.
Which brings us to the third lesson. Trump is deluded about many things, but he’s right to insist that the media and political classes are out of touch with the population. They exist in a fetid ideological comfort zone where radical change is considered apostasy at precisely the moment when radical change is both necessary and popular.
Leading up to the Brexit vote, leaders of the Remain campaign preferred to caricature those in the opposing camp rather than engage them. They derided not only the leaders of the Leave campaign but its followers. You cannot convince people they are doing well when they are not. Yet throughout the Brexit campaign, Remain advocates lectured voters on all the advantages they derived from the European Union and how much worse things would be if they left. From Tony Blair to David Cameron, people who had stiffed working people in a range of ways now insisted they alone could save them from themselves. People just weren’t buying it.”
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 4:27 pm
po: >> that false dichotomy Clinton/Trump.
Mostly I agree with your post, but the dichotomy is not false. One or the other will be elected (or appointed) President.
Liberal / Conservative is a false dichotomy.
I do agree on the points of corruption of the criminal justice system and for-profit prison, the corruption on behalf of banks, credit card companies, wall street (credit default swaps), the Military Industrialists (wars, paid mercenaries like Blackwater, wildly overpaid “contractors” like Halliburton), and the Energy industry. It isn’t just fracking, it is the oil industry corruption, pollution, spills like BP in the gulf, subsidies, tax breaks and quiet tax rebates, cover ups, and even allowing Saudi Arabia to intentionally drive American energy producers out of business. I don’t like fracking at all, but ahead of that on my list is opposing some foreign monopoly forcing Americans out of business so they can maintain their monopoly. Hell, Saudi princes have bragged about it.
Trump is right about the trade deals, just like Bernie was right, and people know it. Cheap goods from overseas are a trap that kills working class manufacturing jobs, that are not replaced by better jobs. The goods are produced by near slave labor, and we cannot compete with it, and the unfortunate truth is that the majority of the country is not intellectually suited for anything but jobs paying much less than the purchasing power of those manufacturing jobs, back when trade was not free and workers were protected by unions.
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 8:13 pm
Mm
It is a false dichotomy BECAUSE it is an artificial one. Why? because we refuse to allow anyone else into that structure of duopoly. Yes, the two parties and the media are making sure to limit the entry of any 3rd party into the ball, but it is so with our cooperation, we the paying/voting public. Either Trump or Hillary will be elected president but it is solely because others are prevented entry. But rather than forcing the chains off and demanding other candidates be heard, we agree with the system that only one or the other can and should be prez, thereby perpetuating such duopoly. Furthermore, we then pick which of the candidate is the lesser evil then we close our eyes, shut our ears, hold our nose and vote for him/her.
It is a false dichotomy because it is one we started ages ago and keep self-reinforcing. we are all in a bubble of our own making which we refuse to step out of. We then filter everything that comes through then use whatever we agree with as the proof for our belief.
Had the women’s league of voters still running these elections, the Green party and the Libertarian party would have been allowed into the debate, which would have blown the doors wide open and, I believe, changed this country for the better. If Hillary was pushed a bit to the left by Bernie, imagine what Jill Stein could have done? How do we expect to get out of warmongering without a candidate saying on stage let’s not go to war? Let’s not the war industry lead us off the cliff? Let’s give the youth free education? Let’s give women free maternity leave? Let’s rein the banks?
It is fascinating to me we have been so thoroughly trained to chose the person we least dislike and it feels not only normal but necessary! The most important act we are making, arguably, and we use it to help usher into power a person whom we care little about but whom we fear a bit less than the other person! It is disturbingly fascinating!
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 11:24 pm
Speaking of corruption: http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clintons-wall-street-fundraising-benefited-loophole-federal-anti
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 5:39 am
>> It is a false dichotomy BECAUSE it is an artificial one.
That is not the meaning of “false dichotomy”, it is a very specific logical fallacy that means something else; specifically it is a fallacy when a person argues there are only two choices when there actually exist three or more choices.
That is not the case here. So now you are just making up your own definitions of long established words and phrases, and that is not the way to win an argument, or if it does win the argument, is a win by lying.
This general idea of twisting definitions of words was Ayn Rand’s primary tactic in her writing; trying to redefine altruism as selfishness and selfishness as altruism, to the point that if her definitional transgressions are compiled, no words describing human actions really mean anything at all.
What you are describing is better described as a “forced dichotomy”. In a true democracy we could have more viable choices, but in our sham of a democracy we are forced to choose between two corrupt dictators.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Mm, am not sure where what you say differs from what I said. I do agree that a false dichotomy is by essence an artificial one, so calling it artificial makes it redundant, yet not wrong by any means.
let’s step back our discussion:
—————
MM says: po: >> that false dichotomy Clinton/Trump.
Mostly I agree with your post, but the dichotomy is not false. One or the other will be elected (or appointed) President.
Liberal / Conservative is a false dichotomy.
Po replies: It is a false dichotomy BECAUSE it is an artificial one. Why? because we refuse to allow anyone else into that structure of duopoly. Yes, the two parties and the media are making sure to limit the entry of any 3rd party into the ball, but it is so with our cooperation, we the paying/voting public. Either Trump or Hillary will be elected president but it is solely because others are prevented entry.
MM answers: That is not the meaning of “false dichotomy”, it is a very specific logical fallacy that means something else; specifically it is a fallacy when a person argues there are only two choices when there actually exist three or more choices (my point exactly!)
———————-
SO, to return to it, I say there are more than two choices.
You say there are only two choices: dichotomy.
I say that is false, there are only two choices because we accept there are only 2 choices, that is an artificial situation. There are more than 2 choices. False dichotomy
You reply there are only 2 choices because only one of those two is electable., forced dichotomy…. which is no more no less than a false dichotomy. Ain’t it?
I don’t need to win an argument, nor was I necessarily disagreeing with you. Accusing me of lying and twisting the meaning of words in order to win an argument when you are doing exactly that in that exact post is pretty ironic.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm
Po,
MM didn’t accuse you of lying. He accused you of, “making up your own definitions of long established words and phrases,” and stated that to use this in argumentation would be akin to lying.
And you do this in spades, Po. Your tomes are replete with words and phrases that you assign spontaneous definitions to, and then you write another tome justifying your definitions.
You also use conclusions as premises, as we’ve discussed before. Argumentation is inherently a linear process, not circular as you continually exhibit.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 2:47 pm
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_dichotomy
A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.
po: GBK is right, I did not say you lied, I said you incorrectly used the language. A “false dichotomy” requires there actually be other options and, as it stands, there are none (you could vote Libertarian or Green, but there is zero chance they would win).
You don’t get to make up your own definition of “false dichotomy,” or any other word or phrase already in common use to mean something specific. In reference to “lying,” I meant that if somebody buys an argument because they understand the actual meaning of a phrase that you are intentionally using incorrectly, that constitutes lying; in the sense that the audience was intentionally misled into agreement.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 2:56 pm
>> forced dichotomy…. which is no more no less than a false dichotomy. Ain’t it?
No. You don’t get to redefine “forced” and “false” to fit that narrative, either.
They are not synonymous; look them up. In a forced dichotomy only two choices exist. In a false dichotomy, more than two choices exist, but a person presents only two of them and insists they are the only choices.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 4:10 pm
I don’t know, if a person wins an argument by doing something whose conclusion enables a “win by lying”, that thing is …”lying”. If the lying enables the win and therefore defines it and is the qualifier for the win, that which enables the win is lying, which means that argument itself is a lie. So if my argument is a lie, have I or haven’t I lied? Is that what you call a linear argument, GBK?
As for my circular reasoning, GBK, as I said countless times before, can’t you just, once for all, prove me wrong logically? I swear I would admit it.
MM
Context being everything, we must acknowledge that our contexts vary. You are speaking from the premise there is no other valid candidate other than these two. I am going from the one where there are but we are making a deliberate choice to limit them to two. What you see as forced is therefore to me STILL a false dichotomy. If we use words outside of any context, you can argue that force is not the same as false, nor is false same as forced, however, in this context of fake, artificial and arbitrary, a forced dichotomy is the same as a false one, both the result of a refusal to acknowledge other options.
To refine, you remove all other options and say:” this situation presents only two choices.” Forced dichotomy from your point of view.
Another person says: ” this situation presents more than two but we will pretend there are only two options.” False dichotomy.
In this context and in relation to my point, both of those are false because both assume true a reality that is arbitrary, subjective, erroneous, and in that reality, there is no dichotomy, there is a multiplicity of options that are artificially reduced to two.
In that light, and even outside of this context, a forced dichotomy is naturally a false dichotomy. If only two options naturally exist, we have a dichotomy. The moment such dichotomy is forced, we no longer have a natural dichotomy , we have an artificial one, which makes it, again and unavoidably, a false dichotomy.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 4:24 pm
revolution is coming, mohahahaha, watch out libs a bunch of old fat white guys are going to man the barricades.
you guys are playing with half a deck of cards. The founders were in their mid to late 30’s. I don’t see any men that age fomenting revolution.
Personally, I cant understand how someone who has a conscience and a semblance of rationality could vote for HRC. A woman I know says the only reason is that they hate Americans. I don’t think she is right but I cant see any other reason except she is a democrat. Scandal follows her like the dust cloud around Pig Pen. She is dirty to her core.
Do you ignore all of that and the mess she helped make of the world? If Jeb Bush had won, I would not have voted for him and he is about as clean as they come.
I really don’t understand how you could vote for such a corrupt human being.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 4:52 pm
“As for my circular reasoning, GBK, as I said countless times before, can’t you just, once for all, prove me wrong logically? I swear I would admit it.” — po
I did this quite a few months ago, Po. It was quite a long thread and it discussed inductive vs. deductive reasoning, premises, logical conditions for premise building, etc. Then I used the argument you were presenting in that thread, and several others, to show how you arguments are not logically sound and are in fact circular in many cases.
I’m sure you remember. That was enough wasted time spent for me.
You keep rambling, though, maybe one day you might understand that ramble is all you do.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 7:36 pm
The way I remember it, GBK, I destroyed your argument using the same logic you decry, I also remember proving very effectively that there is no such thing as linear reasoning, unless we fail we start at a beginning. Linear reasoning is never a whole reasoning, it is always portion of the whole reasoning. It is the process of progression from point B to point Y. A and Z are really one of the same, only A is a hypothesis and Z is a confirmation.
Every reasoning always returns to its premise, for in order for the reasoning to be effective, its premise is its conclusion. If the conclusion counters the premise, the logic is defective. If the conclusion agrees with the premise using a logical progression, the reasoning is sound.
So you are caught up in between B and Y, while I include A and return at Z. Your starting point being random, you do not return to anything, your conclusion always surprises you because it is detached from any premise.
Which isn’t really true actually, for otherwise you would not be able to make any sense of the world. And it would mean that everytime you go after me for whatever you say I am, you would start never at the same point every time. Rather, you would start at B sometimes, M other times, T at times, and you would not necessarily reach the same conclusion you always reach. The fact you go at it the same way everytime suggests you go off a premise, and that premise is your conclusion. That makes it circular.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 10:28 pm
“I really don’t understand how you could vote for such a corrupt human being.”
Well … As many problems as Clinton does have, she does have the wonderful advantage of not being Donald Trump.
Of all the many characteristics to judge a candidate, corruption has got to be the one where Trump far, far exceeds the middlin’, incompetent efforts of Clinton.
When it comes to chutzpah of stiffing contractors, or students, or charities, Clinton is simply not in the same league with Trump.
Trump makes Clinton look like a naive ingénue in the woods.
If corruption were important to the job of head of state, Trump would be the only choice patriotic American could possibly make.
Unfortunately for Trump, after the election, about the only citizens interested in his exploits will likely be IRS and SEC investigators.
Poor Trump. I am feeling sorry all ready.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 7:56 am
po: >> So if my argument is a lie, have I or haven’t I lied?
Your argument can be lie, without your conclusion being a lie. As to whether the speaker is “lying,” it depends on whether they are intentionally misleading, or just mistaken about something. Once you are told that you are mistaken (in some way you can objectively verify, like looking something up in a dictionary I could not have faked) then persisting in the “mistake” is no longer just a mistake, it is intentional and a lie. In your case, insisting a false dichotomy is present when it is not, presumably because you think “false dichotomy” has some air of erudition, transforms from a possible mistake in understanding to intentional falsehood: a lie.
It is often true that arguments contain falsehoods or mistakes but come to the correct conclusion anyway; this has been true even in scientific fields such as mathematics, biology, and physics. In fact our best models of physics, gravity and relativity are almost certainly wrong, but 99.999% of the time come to correct conclusions.
In politics and economics people invent all kinds of irrational reasons to declare one outcome or another, and turn out right. They were still lying even if the outcome they predicted came to pass; but that is because the predicted event had an actual chance of transpiring no matter how some idiot justified his guess.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 8:05 am
po: End of discussion. You don’t know what you are talking about, and I don’t have the time to detail why, and now that you can look up what a “false dichotomy” actually is, you are just lying, and revealing that you are willing to lie in order to not be wrong. You are lying when you say you will admit being wrong, this is a simple thing: You are lying. We are not presented with a false dichotomy. In terms of voting for somebody that has a chance to be President, one must vote for Hillary or Trump. period. There is no third option with any chance of being POTUS in 2017. There are two choices. That is a true dichotomy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in believing you were just making a mistake, I withdraw it: You are lying, and as far as I can discern, pointlessly.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 8:27 am
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/216700/who-goes-trump “It’s true that some Trump supporters loathe the man’s behavior and more outré positions, but nonetheless see him as something of a savior figure. They are willing to put their faith in a sociopath because they have convinced themselves that the alternative will literally destroy the country. On the other hand, many, perhaps most, Trump supporters aren’t voting for him in spite of his talking like a thug, demeaning women, and hurling racist insinuations at the country’s first black president, but because he does these things.
“Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi,” Dorothy Thompson wrote. “Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them. Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi.” Trump supporters are people who, were he to become president, would explain away the mosque firebombing or Attorney General Chris Christie’s “opening up the libel laws” against The New York Times, just as passive Nazi voters looked away from the “Don’t buy from Jews” graffiti spray-painted on the neighborhood grocery store. These people are lacking “something in them,” a moral code, and their very large numbers are a troubling indicator of a rot in the American soul.”
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 9:15 am
The rot in the American soul is HRC and her kind.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 9:23 am
SWM: 98% of people are not sociopaths; about 85% of people are completely normal on the scale.
People become bigoted and passive because of something outside them, namely hardships, despair, and deprivations. It is a lie that they do not have a moral code. Perhaps some of their sociopathic leaders in religion, in politics, in rhetoric have no moral code, but it is simple human psychology that for the vast majority of people, their radius of inclusivity shrinks rapidly as their economic and social stress and threats increase, until ultimately they are reduced to trusting a small subset of their homogenous family and tribe and people that look, act, talk and believe as they do. People are always, always competing for limited resources and that demands some method of deciding who will be denied resources. For about 250,000 years, the answer is that family and friends come first, frequent associates come next, and strangers starve and die in the wilderness; they are on their own. The radius of inclusivity is determined by the availability of resources.
Kirchick’s (The author) bullshit mentality that there is something inherently wrong with Trump supporters is ironically hypocritical; he is engaging in the same kind of demonization as racists do when saying some ethnicity is inherently lazy, or greedy, or shifty, or cold-hearted, or bent on criminality.
We stop racism by increasing available resources and making them as easy to obtain as we possibly can, thus ending the economic and physical threats that are at the root of people drawing such tight circles out of fear that strangers are going to destroy their tribe. There would undoubtedly still be pockets of idiots engaged in racism, but to declare that 45% of Americans are lacking “something in them, a moral code, and a rot in the American soul” is completely moronic. What’s next for Kirchick? Trump supporters are sub-humans and we would do humanity a service by exterminating them?
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 9:29 am
Po:
Arent you Muslim? I love Omar Khayyám. There were many great Muslim scholars a thousand years ago. What happened? Why did Muslims turn away from science and beauty?
While I don’t like GBK nor MM’s political views and you seem like a much nicer person, I have to say, it pains me to no end, that they are correct about your logic. it is for shit. I would recommend this book, it is Aristotelian based logic.
https://archive.org/details/introductiontolo00jose
Hopefully you can learn how to properly compose an argument.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 10:03 am
MM, Like Fred and Donald Trump turned to racism because of a lack of resources.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 12:19 pm
“The fact you go at it the same way everytime suggests you go off a premise, and that premise is your conclusion.” — Po
You’re right Po, I stand defeated. Your superb reasoning shows the shackles binding my mind and proves that my premise, “Po is a theocratic idiot,” is the same as my conclusion.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 5:17 pm
“I destroyed your argument using the same logic you decry, . . .” — Po
I suggest this, Po:
https://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Oxford-American-Dictionary-Thesaurus/dp/0199729956/ref=pd_sim_14_4/162-2819774-7528457?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HTAKX3BVQ5Z38N4TYGZK
It’s only $7.99. Of course you have the whole internet at your disposal to verify word meanings and other obviously unimportant details of accurate communication.
But, sometimes, it can be rewarding to peruse even a small book — even one as clinical as a dictionary/thesaurus — as you might stumble upon, from your journey from A-Z (which you claim to include), some new information.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 6:25 pm
As usual, MM, you want to create a very specific context for a very widely used word. Lying as understood by MOST people, if not ALL people, means to intentionally utter an erroneous statement. Being mistaken is to make a statement that is wrong without intent to deceive. Lying is making the same statement with intent to deceive. However, an erroneous statement is (generally) a lie because it is untrue. Whether one is given the benefit of the doubt as to whether it is a lie or a mistake is based on many factors, most of them subjective, but principally whether or not the person showed previously to have known that the statement was not true.
Your claim I am lying is based on the subjective fact that you claim a word means something while i claim that word, in context (context being everything) means something else. So far you have been unable to, in context, show the difference between a false dichotomy and a forced one.
And here let us make sure we are grounded: forced and false mean different things. In THIS context however, they ultimately meant the same thing because one is part of the other, “forced” being “false” as they each relate to dichotomy.
I noticed you offer a definition of false dichotomy but did not a definition of forced dichotomy. Why not take it out of the realm of subjectivity and make it objective. Offer any source where a clear distinction is drawn between the two and one does not relate to the other. I haven”t found it. Now if after you offer it I insist on that distinction, then you may call me a liar.
As far as “ In terms of voting for somebody that has a chance to be President, one must vote for Hillary or Trump. period. There is no third option with any chance of being POTUS in 2017. , note how you have further defined the argument beyond the scope of what we were debating? You have effectively reduced that scope to the narrowest scope it can be, chance…2017… That actually demonstrates effectively my point about this false dichotomy…and the forced dichotomy that causes it. You have determined only 2 options exist, a very subjective one indeed. False? Forced? Either way, I believe at least one more option exists, and because I refuse to indulge this forced dichotomy, which is false in my view because artificial, I make the claim that, no, this dichotomy exists only in your minds, the fact you refuse to see that there are other valid candidates does not make them disappear, they are here and I can see them…hence, this dichotomy is false, false dichotomy :)))))))
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 6:30 pm
bron98
Hopefully you can learn how to properly compose an argument.
————————–
Bron, based on that post above, I believe that book would be MUCH more beneficial to you.
You have to read it though!
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 6:35 pm
gbk
November 3, 2016 at 5:17 pm
“I destroyed your argument using the same logic you decry, . . .” — Po
I suggest this, Po:
https://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Oxford-American-Dictionary-Thesaurus/dp/0199729956/ref=pd_sim_14_4/162-2819774-7528457?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HTAKX3BVQ5Z38N4TYGZK
It’s only $7.99. Of course you have the whole internet at your disposal to verify word meanings and other obviously unimportant details of accurate communication.
But, sometimes, it can be rewarding to peruse even a small book — even one as clinical as a dictionary/thesaurus — as you might stumble upon, from your journey from A-Z (which you claim to include), some new information.
————————————–
gbk, what a wordy way to state that you don’t have an argument!!!
I am supposed to be the one who says a lot without saying much!
But…you are welcome. Thank you also for proving my point about circular logic, you have been circling around “po is a theocratic idiot” for a year now, and yet still unable to linearly, logically, tie your premise with your conclusion.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 7:07 pm
po:
Good suggestion. I am reading it.
Do you believe we need to follow God’s/Allah’s laws as closely as possible?
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 7:20 pm
I think the issue, Bron, is who interpret God’s laws? I think there are two Gods, the personal one and the communal one, and the balance to achieve is to reconcile the two. When either dominates, the other shrinks, and when the personal dominates, one’s God is the god of the self and one is willing to sacrifice all for the self. When the communal one dominates, the person is sacrificed to the ideal.
God’s laws, as far as I see them in all of the holy books is just love yourself, Him and his. That is the single message all prophets brought, everything else is societal, political and communal.
So if by God’s laws you mean, do no harm, show goodwill and give Him His due, then yes, I believe that.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 7:21 pm
Uh oh,…I think Bron baited me right into gbk’s scope!
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 7:31 pm
“. . . you have been circling around “po is a theocratic idiot” for a year now, and yet still unable to linearly, logically, tie your premise with your conclusion.” — Po
According to you, this is not necessary as Z leads back to A, or some such nonsense. At any rate, that’s your perspective which I disagree with.
You said quite a lot on FFS in a few threads — perhaps you’ve forgotten. I’ll pull them up to remind you of how you think your thought should be imposed on others.
You don’t even get the gist of my post suggesting a dictionary, Po. I don’t “decry” logic, Po, this is your domain.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 8:13 pm
well, gbk, looks like that dictionary has your name on it…or ought to…
verb (used with object), decried, decrying.
1.
to speak disparagingly of; denounce as faulty or worthless; express censure of:
She decried the lack of support for the arts in this country.
2.
to condemn or depreciate by proclamation, as foreign or obsolete coins.
But please don’t just pull what I said, break them down to show where they fail. And really, really show where I advocate imposing my thought upon others.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Cry on, Po.
By your words you accuse me of cherry picking. I assure you that is not the case; this is why I first quoted the ending sentence of your November 2, 2016 at 7:36 pm post instead of the obvious mistake in your first sentence.
I see no point in continuing to rip apart your referenced post, which would be trivial.
You should understand that the onus of any argument you make is on you — the words, the concepts, the desire to persuade. You lack this ability and try patience due to your ill usage of language and inferences of your own claims.
I lack this ability due to really not giving a shit, and yet your claims are so egregious at times that I feel compelled to speak out.
You carry on, Po; with your spontaneous definitions supporting your claimed sense of argumentation. I’m done with you except in cases where others miss your nature, thinking your words are sensible when they plainly suggest a dystopian and theocratic future.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 9:32 pm
Gbk, let us just agree to disagree. We both won.
As for dystopian and theocractic future… neither you or I have an idea what you are talking about…
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 9:39 pm
bron98
November 3, 2016 at 9:29 am
Po:
Arent you Muslim? I love Omar Khayyám. There were many great Muslim scholars a thousand years ago. What happened? Why did Muslims turn away from science and beauty?
———————————–
Bron
There are still great Muslims scholars right now. What happened is what happened to the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Chinese…the French and the British …time and warfare.
No empire ever remains unscathed by the sands of time.
As for Muslims, I suspect you mean Arabs. I know that all the great centers of learning in West Africa and Sudan, along with their thousands upon thousands of books were turned to ashes when the white man came on his boat and took millions of Africans back to these shores.
But science and beauty are still found in the Muslim world, whether here in New York city or in South Korea.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 10:32 pm
“As for dystopian and theocractic future… neither you or I have an idea what you are talking about…” — Po
How insulting, Po.
Your thought is taking all of us to this future. The world has been there before, and it took centuries to recover.
You stated it clearly. I’ll remind you of your words when I return home on Tuesday.
As your brother and you sit and smile at each other at the completeness of submission to your thought, and how the world would be better if all had your perspective. So easy.
LikeLike
November 3, 2016 at 11:00 pm
What?
No, you’ve got me completely wrong, gbk, Actually, to desire the whole world have my perspective would be to go against the tenets of my faith, which states: “And We have revealed to you, the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.”
What I love best about the universe is how unique each one and each thing is. The exchange is divine currency. Even ours thrills me 🙂
LikeLike
November 4, 2016 at 3:09 pm
SwM: >> MM, Like Fred and Donald Trump turned to racism because of a lack of resources.
A fair point. Cultural training is certainly a significant part of bigotries; and both Fred and Donald (and my grandparents and several aunts and uncles and great aunts and uncles) were all brought up in times of rampant racism. Abraham Lincoln was an unapologetic racist. (See quotes.)
I glossed over that; and people that get through puberty in an environment where racism is culturally accepted tend to never get over it (some do, most do not). Fortunately for myself and my siblings; we were seldom exposed except in the negative sense (meaning racism against cousins and friends of my parents).
LikeLike
November 4, 2016 at 3:13 pm
po: >> As usual, MM, you want to create a very specific context for a very widely used word.
Bullshit. Read the dictionary. As for lying, I will repeat: I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you made a mistake. Despite showing you the dictionary definition that proves you made a mistake, you doubled down. Now you know the truth and therefore are intentionally using the term incorrectly and thus, you are lying.
LikeLike
November 4, 2016 at 8:55 pm
MM says:
In a forced dichotomy only two choices exist. In a false dichotomy, more than two choices exist, but a person presents only two of them and insists they are the only choices.
…Despite showing you the dictionary definition that proves you made a mistake, you doubled down
———————————————-
Let me repeat myself:
I noticed you offer a definition of false dichotomy but did not a definition of forced dichotomy. Why not take it out of the realm of subjectivity and make it objective. Offer any source where a clear distinction is drawn between the two and one does not relate to the other. I haven”t found it. Now if after you offer it I insist on that distinction, then you may call me a liar.
LikeLike
November 4, 2016 at 8:59 pm
Mm:
Now you know the truth and therefore are intentionally using the term incorrectly and thus, you are lying.
—————————-
“The truth” is YOUR truth, it is not an universal truth. So using the word according to my understanding of it, which is supported by usage and logic is not lying, it is to be actually truthful.
I believe you are the one lying by insisting on a definition whose meaning is backed by nothing that I can find. You’d think any dictionary would state the difference you claim is established.
LikeLike
November 5, 2016 at 6:41 am
po: No, the truth is the dictionary truth, which is a consensus on language by experts in language and accepted as the final authority by virtually all educators and by the law when interpreting contracts. If I sign a contract saying I promise to deliver X by date Y, then I do not get to claim before the court that “by date” means “somewhere around a date” or that my “delivery” was accomplished without actually turning something over to my customer, because in my mind “deliver X” just means I gave up on working on X.
“false dichotomy” is in the dictionary. It means what it says it means, not what you believe it means, not what you want it to mean, and now you are just lying. A false dichotomy is when more than one actual choice or option exists, and the interlocutor presents only two choices as if they are the only choices. It is also called the fallacy of the excluded middle. But that is not the case with Hillary and Trump, regardless of your fantasies, in reality they are the only two choices one has for President because the chances that one of those two wins is effectively 100%. This means there really are just two choices, this really is a true dichotomy, and your insistence it is not is ludicrous and a lie, it is not logic, it is denying the plain truth. It makes no difference how this situation arrived, it is here and it is real.
The phrase “forced dichotomy” was my own, offered as a way for you to NOT LIE by calling it a “false dichotomy”. It does not deny the truth of the dichotomy; it impugns how this true dichotomy came to be; how the American people were manipulated and propagandized into a choice between two people so widely disliked that a majority of all voters dislike one, and another majority of all voters dislike the other. It was forced upon us by rampantly corrupt manipulations and self-serving and self-enriching rules of government and both political parties.
You are lying, po, and needlessly.
LikeLike
November 5, 2016 at 5:16 pm
At least now we are getting somewhere, MM.
As I said, you redefined a term by offering your own vocabulary as an alternative to that term and to how it is widely known.
The issue was really whether or not we have a false dichotomy, which is a subjective thing because though you feel there are only 2 options, making it a dichotomy, I believe there are more than 2 options, therefore your dichotomy s a false one because it is deliberately obscuring other choices. In fact, I should have been the one to call you a liar based on your denial of these facts:
– there are more than 2 parties
– there are more than 2 candidates running for president,
– If for any reason either one of the current main two were disqualified from running, which is still plausible somehow, another candidate (s) would present themselves
When you say: “ A false dichotomy is when more than one (do you mean 2?)actual choice or option exists, and the interlocutor presents only two choices as if they are the only choices.” how does it differ from what I said? Haven’t I said consistently that more than two options exist and the fact we are told only two exist makes it a false dichotomy?
But, you seem to agree with me that systemically and specifically we have a false dichotomy. Systemically by the collusion from the parties and the media in making it seem there are only two parties, and specifically that we refuse to acknowledge that there are other candidates currently running who could turn out valid candidates if only we gave them the same exposure.
I still don’t get why you agree with me with my definition, disagree with me as to its application then call me the liar????
–
LikeLike
November 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm
>> based on your denial of these facts:
Except I did not deny those facts, I specifically noted them, and the true dichotomy remains: There are only two people in 2016 that have even a remote chance of becoming President of the United States.
>> were disqualified from running, which is still plausible somehow, another candidate (s) would present themselves
No, they would not. It is too late to get anybody else on the ballot, by several weeks. In fact it has happened many times that a candidate on the ballot actually dies before an election but too late to change the ballot, and the dead man gets votes and can win the election. Those votes do not go to “another candidate”; generally the law considers being dead as a valid reason one is unfit to serve, so the person with the next most votes and a heartbeat wins the election, even if from a different party.
>> you seem to agree with me that systemically and specifically we have a false dichotomy.
NO I DON’T. You are mistaken. Specifically, we have a true dichotomy, because we have no third voting option with any chance of getting a President that is not Hillary and not Trump. None. That makes it a true dichotomy.
Nor is it “systemically” a false dichotomy:
>> collusion from the parties and the media in making it seem there are only two parties,
The media isn’t making it “seem” there are only two parties, the media is happy to report third parties all the time. But eventually the third and fourth parties reliable peter out to the point where they have no chance of winning, no support in the populace, and aren’t worth their time, reporting is a ratings game and that means they must cater to public interest. If the public is not interested in the Libertarians or Greens or Wiccans, that is not a fault of the press, their job is to provide analysis, research and insight that people want; it is NOT their job to help candidates or parties, particularly those that the people do not give a shit about.
The systemic part is not about a false dichotomy, it is about forcing upon us a true dichotomy; and the people are compliant; as teens they choose Democrat or Republican, then typically and predictably abdicate nearly all future critical thought on the matter or on the issues; never question their assumptions or whether their “strategy” is working or anything else. Their thoughts are entirely devoted to justifying whatever their tribe is doing and vilifying whatever the other tribe is doing,
In short it is not a FALSE dichotomy, it is a real one. and I did NOT REDEFINE ANY WORDS, I offered you an original combination of words that captured the truth: The dichotomy can be true but forced upon us.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling you a liar, because I doubt you are truly too stupid to understand what the word “false” means.
LikeLike
November 5, 2016 at 6:16 pm
P.S. Or frequently the court will collude with the party to appoint a surrogate candidate (like the wife of a politician); which I have read is illegal but has been done more than once anyway. One might think, in the Presidential race, if the head of the ticket dies but the ticket wins, the VP candidate might become President; since they received those votes and would have succeeded the President if he had died in office. I think it would actually have to be decided by the Supreme Court on the grounds of the Constitution being unclear on the issue at hand; namely the inadvertent election of a corpse as President.
LikeLike
November 5, 2016 at 6:21 pm
P.P.S. Having said that, a Republican friend of mine has opined he would rather install the mummified corpse of Ronald Reagan in the oval office for four years than see Hillary or Trump in it. Mummified Reagan’s secretary can start practicing the line, “I’m sorry, The President is indisposed at the moment.”
LikeLike
November 5, 2016 at 9:22 pm
MM , didn’t you say this:
It does not deny the truth of the dichotomy; it impugns how this true dichotomy came to be; how the American people were manipulated and propagandized into a choice between two people so widely disliked that a majority of all voters dislike one, and another majority of all voters dislike the other. It was forced upon us by rampantly corrupt manipulations and self-serving and self-enriching rules of government and both political parties.
How did they do that?
And then you said this:
The media isn’t making it “seem” there are only two parties, the media is happy to report third parties all the time. But eventually the third and fourth parties reliable peter out to the point where they have no chance of winning, no support in the populace, and aren’t worth their time, reporting is a ratings game and that means they must cater to public interest. If the public is not interested in the Libertarians or Greens or Wiccans, that is not a fault of the press, their job is to provide analysis, research and insight that people want; it is NOT their job to help candidates or parties, particularly those that the people do not give a shit about.
In between those two, there are actually one actor that enables the process, and it is the media. As evidenced by the wikileaks, the democrats have most of the mainstream media under thumb, making them do their bidding, and the same on Fox, both of which are practically ignoring the 3rd parties, especially the green party. The media has actually been telling us there are no other party besides the two main ones. The same networks are not inviting the third parties to the debates at the urging of the two main parties. That is NOT a dichotomy, that is a FALSE dichotomy. Insisting that it is a dichotomy because you swallowed the lure that there are no other valid option speaks not of the reality, it speaks of your subjective reality. You keep proving my point about how it is a false dichotomy WHILE yelling that it isn’t??!!!
Furthermore, if you retrace my steps, you’d see that I refused to be bound to your specific and subsequent framing of the argument that it is solely about the “valid options” 2 days before the elections. My argument was always about the general state of being that disqualifies all other options besides the two, which includes the couple of seasons the candidates have been competing. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that and want to frame my argument solely within the last 4 days show you as the dishonest one, the liar.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 4:34 am
Po,
Had a little time tonight to re-read your dribble. Here are some observations:
From November 2, 2016 at 7:36 pm
“ . . . I also remember proving very effectively that there is no such thing as linear reasoning, unless we fail we start at a beginning. Linear reasoning is never a whole reasoning, it is always portion of the whole reasoning.”
Let’s parse this dribble, Po:
1. “There is no such thing as linear reasoning . . .” Forget the, “unless we fail we start at a beginning” bit because I have no idea what this means.
2. Then you say, “linear reasoning is never a whole reasoning, it is always a portion of the whole reasoning.”
Didn’t you say in (1) that there is no such thing as linear reasoning? Yes, you did. So if there is no such thing as linear reasoning how can it be a portion of the whole reasoning as you claim in (2)?
Welcome to inference, Po.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 5:06 am
Po,
“I think the issue, Bron, is who interpret God’s laws? I think there are two Gods, the personal one and the communal one . . .” — Po
I could have sworn, Po, that you tried real hard to school me on how there is only one god, and I just don’t know it yet. I’ll find the quotes when I get back home on Tuesday, as I don’t carry external drives when I travel.
But now there are two? Personal and communal?
I also remember some words from you claiming that you are more qualified to express the will of god due to your obvious future redemption, of which, sadly I will not participate in. I’ll find that claim too, Po.
Then we can talk about who should interpret god’s laws.
Who the fuck are you again to impress your sagging and meandering intellect on others?
You think too much of yourself, Po.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 8:24 am
po says: >> In between those two, there are actually one actor that enables the process, and it is the media.
You have cause and effect reversed. The media coverage is an “effect”.
po says: >> As evidenced by the wikileaks, the democrats have most of the mainstream media under thumb, […] both [are] ignoring the 3rd parties, especially the green party.
That puts the lie to your claim it is the media! If “the media” is controlled almost entirely by political actors, in part by Democrats and in part by Republicans, then “the media” it is not an independent actor and cannot be an accomplice responsible for anything, including your “enabling of the process”. If “the media” were just a tool of the political parties, then it would be the parties that are responsible for the outcome.
Although WL does prove that the Democrats were directly trying to influence various media outlets, I think the real world provides plenty of evidence that “the media” is not some monolithic block, and runs with whatever they think will attract an audience so they can sell ads. Both Democrats and Republicans have been slimed by “the media”, we obviously would never know about most leaks if it weren’t for the media, and often major outlets (papers, TV, cable, Internet) break news harmful to the parties they typically support.
I am not arguing the media is angelic, they can certainly be corrupt. But I think they are in it for the money. One piece of evidence is Leslie Moonves statement about Donald Trump: “”It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” He is the chairman and CEO, and he was referring specifically to the ad money flowing in from both campaigns: “Man, who would have expected the ride we’re all having right now? … The money’s rolling in and this is fun,” he said.
That is not a man under the thumb of either party, Moonves is the man in charge and he is being open and honest about following the money.
Most of the media ignores 3rd parties, including the green party, because there is no money in paying attention to those parties. More specifically, for mainstream media it costs thousands of $ to produce a story (in print or on air), it occupies minutes or hours of work by paid talent (including writers, researchers, on-air newscasters) and it must be aired, or printed, or posted, and that too requires hours of tech talent. All of that is an “investment” that must pay off in terms of an “audience.” The reason the media ignores 3rd parties is that after an initial novelty of a candidate (if any) then the 3rd parties are both boring and poor business partners.
The 3rd party candidates aren’t buying the ads, and they aren’t being interesting or controversial enough to sell any ads. They are regurgitating the same old shit reporters have heard for years, the Libertarians say the government is too big and taxes are too high and have zero plausible plans for how to shrink it. The Greens sat we will kill the planet with global warming (I agree) with zero plausible plans for how to prevent it. Their conservation message (which is utter bullshit for those of us that can do math) is unchanged, and therefore boring and not worth an investment of resources that will just fizzle. Better to have a clip of Trump talking about grabbing pussy.
We have a two party race, a true dichotomy, forced upon us by rampantly corrupt manipulations and self-serving and self-enriching rules of government and both political parties.
You ask, How did they do that? I doubt you have the rational capacity to follow the answer, but here goes anyway:
Sociopaths seek power and money. They tend to be good actors and good liars with little fear. They can be dumb or smart; sociopathy does seem to be a structural difference in brain organization; but does not seem to be an impediment to high rational intelligence; sociopathy is more of a deficit in emotional responses (sympathy or empathy). So we see roughly the same tail distribution in sociopaths as non-sociopaths; i.e. the same percentage of high intelligence.
Highly intelligent sociopaths see political service as a boondoggle; even city council members punch no clock and answer to nobody about how they are spending their time, and the higher up the ladder they can get, the more money, perks, and independence they have, and the more influence they can sell. Sociopaths will lie, cheat, steal, frame and betray others to get ahead. It is an advantage in politics, and many sociopaths fight each other for the positions that will be the most personally rewarding and enriching. So we get a survival of the fittest contest over political offices, and this results in a high concentration of smart, rich sociopaths occupying the highest levels of government. In our country, that is the House, the Senate, the Oval office and other highly paid positions in the Cabinet, the military, and our (literally) thousands of intelligence agencies and off-book military units.
That is how it happened; po. It is a pervasive, long term invasion of self-interested, self-enriching sociopaths, with hundreds more of them graduating from top universities every year, eager to get their money rolling in.
The same logic applies to business, sociopathy combined with high intelligence is a competitive advantage in rising to the executive suite of a multi-billion dollar business.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 1:05 pm
P.S. Of course I am not saying the competitive advantage of sociopathy plus high intelligence always wins; it is possible that more benign “advantages” like charisma, wit, fast and funny or good retorts (Al Franken), good looks (Sarah Palin), a great baritone that people find hypnotic (Reagan) or just some party-animal appeal like GWB had will win office. Machiavelli was brilliant, but advised the prince, he did not become one. I think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are over-rated in intelligence, but I see them as examples of sociopathic strategists without the physical presence to be a compelling candidate on their own.
I know some people think I am too focused on the Us vs. Them in regard to sociopaths, but that is truly the battle of all mankind and has been for thousands of years. Peace is unattainable because sociopaths want power and wealth and don’t give a shit who has to get hurt for them to get it. The climate change problem is due to sociopaths. The cancer problems are due to sociopaths, the explosion of autism is due to sociopaths, the religious conflicts are due to sociopaths, as are most manifestations of life-controlling religions themselves — They are sociopaths at the top controlling society by coercion in order to funnel money and power to the top. Most of those religious schemes are leftover from when religion was central in politics, now that religion is less central to politics we have rampant political corruptions of “democracies” by sociopaths, in order to do the same thing: coerce society into funneling money and power to them, at the top.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 6:31 pm
Coincidentally, The Intercept published this today. Different than mine, but more on how the elections are rigged (but as they say, these are symptoms of governance by the rich):
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/06/nine-ways-the-u-s-voting-system-is-rigged-but-not-against-donald-trump/
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 10:11 pm
It is rigged against black voters.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 11:24 pm
MM, you are circular rationalizing yourself into a hole (wink to GBK).
Seems the more you explain, the more explanation is required to frame your fallacies:
1-You have cause and effect reversed. The media coverage is an “effect”. Effect of what? You are arguing both sides of the argument right now. One side justifies the fact that the media doesn’t give 3rd parties exposure for the reasons you listed, while claiming that the media isn’t able to act, they solely react.
Additionally, you are confusing causes and effects. the fact that les Moonves makes money of the elections does not mean that the sole driver is monetary. The money is usually a side effect. Do you doubt that Fox is affiliated with Republicans structure and ideology? Do you doubt MSNBC is affiliated with Democrats structure and ideology? Why do both openly and proudly support political actors of their own side? Is it money or is it ideology?
When there was the drive for the Iraq war, MSNBC got rid of any dissenting voice on their roster, making everyone else join the chorus for warmongering. Was it money or ideology? (although in this case it was the neoliberal ideology of Hillary clinton and her neo-liberal ilk whose ideology, when it comes to war, is often at the right of the conservatives.)
2-MM says:
“That puts the lie to your claim it is the media! If “the media” is controlled almost entirely by political actors, in part by Democrats and in part by Republicans, then “the media” it is not an independent actor and cannot be an accomplice responsible for anything, including your “enabling of the process”. If “the media” were just a tool of the political parties, then it would be the parties that are responsible for the outcome.
Again, you are framing the topic in its narrowest scope possible. One does not negate the other. The “media” is primarily a commercial entity. But one that is beholden to the ideology that it subscribes to and the actors that it support. It is obvious to all, including you that Fox is also a political entity, one whose primary aim, as we have seen for at least a decade, is to foster the interests, ideology and message of the right. Same for MSNBC. Neither however, was created by either party, each is affiliated with a party. So to attempt to state that my argument is that the media is solely a political entity is a lie, and you know it. They are, as most of us can see, commercial entities affiliated with a specific party and serving as mouthpiece for the message of that party. As for every relationship, each side uses the other and each sides benefits, until that relationship starts to burn. Which we saw in Trump and Fox News. At some point, when Trump strayed from the path, Fox news turned against him, which cost them a huge money stream, but it was unavoidable considering their ties to the republican party.
Also, if the media acts as gatekeeper, decides what to report, how to report, it when to report it, whom to report it and how often to report it, how isn’t it an actor? How is it an effect?
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 11:43 pm
GBK says:
Let’s parse this dribble, Po:
1. “There is no such thing as linear reasoning . . .” Forget the, “unless we fail we start at a beginning” bit because I have no idea what this means.
2. Then you say, “linear reasoning is never a whole reasoning, it is always a portion of the whole reasoning.”
Didn’t you say in (1) that there is no such thing as linear reasoning? Yes, you did. So if there is no such thing as linear reasoning how can it be a portion of the whole reasoning as you claim in (2)?
Welcome to inference, Po.
————————————
1- Unless we fail TO start at a beginning. Just means that linear reasoning requires a start other than the beginning.
For example, if you started a the beginning, you’d state, Po is a theocratic idiot. Your next step, linear step, would be towards proving logically that Po is a theocratic idiot. You might gather statements I have made proving such premise, tally them, lay them out,, explain how they show your point and conclude that , yes, Po is a theocratic idiot. But in that case your whole linear process is dependent upon your starting point. And at the end, you have circled back to your premise. Now if you were unable to move to the next step from your premise, and aren’t, as currently, able to set the steps you need to move from one linear point to the next, your argument would fail or you would double down on reaching your conclusion but illogically. In this case you would offer your premise, reach the same conclusion but without offering any argument in between, or reach the predetermined conclusion though it counters your arguments.
One way to avoid such problem is to start after the premise, and ignore the premise. You would then say: Po said this, then that, then that, and based on the logical conclusion of those statements, he is a theocratic idiot. This would be a linear reasoning because each step necessarily builds from the previous and the conclusion would necessarily be the sum of all the previous steps. If one of those steps if off, your logical process will also be off and your conclusion too would be off. But because your conclusion depends on your logical process, it would reveal itself only at the end, not before.
2- There is no linear reasoning unless you fail To start at a beginning. In other words, linear reasoning requires you to start your argumentation without providing a premise. The moment you have a premise, and go off it, you are looking to circle back to it. Making it a circular argument. Most people think that way. Especially you.
MM too.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 11:55 pm
gbk says:
I could have sworn, Po, that you tried real hard to school me on how there is only one god,…
But now there are two? Personal and communal?
————————————
Sigh!
gbk, I was talking about religion then and am talking about spirituality now. Religiously, logically, there is only one god. Which is what monotheistic religions teach.
Personally, spiritually, there is also and still one god, but the aim was to show the value in splitting the one god into two entities, one owned by the community and one owned by the personal. It is all a matter of balance, of one needing to find himself in god without turning from the community, and finding himself within the community without losing his self. I ti easier expressed with the idea of 2 two separate gods and needing to merge them back together equally.
GBK says:
I also remember some words from you claiming that you are more qualified to express the will of god due to your obvious future redemption, of which, sadly I will not participate in. I’ll find that claim too, Po.
Then we can talk about who should interpret god’s laws.
Who the fuck are you again to impress your sagging and meandering intellect on others?
You think too much of yourself, Po.
—————————–
I am more qualified to sense the will of my God if I am responsive to him. Ultimately, God s a human creation. Either He exists and obviously must be more present in the awareness of he who believes in Him, rehearses His words and tries to live according to His will, or He does not exist and is the creation of human imagination, with the system and structure in which He exists, including the rules that bind Him, in which case, I who created Him, imagined Him, and fleshed Him out in my mind am more knowing of Him and His will than He who denies Him?
Either way, He lives in my imagination, and unless He lives in your imagination as He does in mind, I am more in tune with His will.
NO?
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 10:09 am
po says: MM, you are circular rationalizing yourself into a hole.
No I am not. Typically, I am trying various paths to explain something to you, and you are trying to claim my use of various paths and ever more detailed explanations indicates my irrationality, when it actually is a reflection of your own.
I say you have cause and effect confused; and the media coverage that marginalizes 3rd parties is an ‘effect’.
You ask, “effect of what?” It is an effect of the fact that there is very little money for the media in covering 3rd parties! Once it becomes clear a 3rd party is no longer increasing in voter share, once it becomes clear the 3rd party candidates provide no more clown factor that might entertain an audience, once it becomes clear the 3rd party candidate is only going to regurgitate the same old tripe that most of the media audience has been bored with for many years, THEN 3rd party candidates don’t get any more air time. The media was happy to cover Ross Perot all the way to election day, because Perot brought them a rabid audience and Perot himself had some entertainment value.
I do not claim the media is solely capable of “reacting”, I claim the media focuses almost entirely on their own bottom line, with a healthy dose of not poisoning their own well by alienating the people that can make them money. They won’t give up tens of millions of dollars to mollify either party; which means they are NOT under the control of either party.
For example, the leaked “Face the Nation” communications in which show producers promised softball questions if an embattled politician would appear on the show, which apparently resulted in an agreement because that is what happened. You are confused if you think that is about actual sympathy for the politician; the show producers just wanted the scoop of “first interview” after a scandal, in the business it is called a “good get”, even if the resulting interview was devoid of content and 100% spin by the politician in question. In other words, it is all about the bottom line, and if feigning sympathy for a criminal politician is what it takes, they do that. If they must throw somebody under a bus, they will do that; after consult polls to ensure they aren’t going to outrage their viewers by doing so.
The argument is not circular or incoherent: The media only appears to be a mouthpiece for a party when doing that makes them money directly, or indirectly through greater access to draws (the popular or powerful people that get ratings) or increasing the balance of favors.
Metaphorically this works like a pride of lions: They will work together for mutual profit for years, but if one of them is injured (say by a kick from prey that breaks a leg), the rest of the pride will immediately turn on the injured lion and eat it alive, without mercy.
po says: The money is usually a side effect.
No it isn’t, this is all about the money; and affiliation with a party is an association of convenience. Sociopaths do not have principles and morals, so they won’t forgo money to uphold them. They do not have feelings of pride or righteousness or self-satisfaction for “doing the right thing.” Individual newscasters may, but in the end the sociopaths at the top will find actors willing to play “newscasters” and serve the balance of profit and nothing else. The money is not a side effect, the money is the goal, which is why all media outlets cravenly cater to whatever audience they have, without regard to what is true or false, harmful or helpful.
po says: Do you doubt that Fox is affiliated with Republicans structure and ideology? Do you doubt MSNBC is affiliated with Democrats structure and ideology? Why do both openly and proudly support political actors of their own side? Is it money or is it ideology?
Yes, I doubt “affiliations”, as I said. The “proud support” is what their audiences want to hear; people are tribal unless they make a strenuous effort to not be tribal, and most people are opposed to strenuous effort. So they consume whatever news or broadcasts or websites already agree with them.
An analogy: Rats can be raised as livestock, 42 of 383 cultures worldwide regularly consume rodents as food, many consider rats a delicacy. They reproduce well, grow fast, learn quickly, and adapt to a wide variety of local conditions. Many convert vegetation into meat efficiently. SO, knowing that, which business will do better in America? A restaurant that serves only fried rat, or a restaurant that serves only fried chicken? The answer is obvious; no matter how much you might want to promote the use of rat as a meat source for the purpose of conservation (they don’t need farm grown grain), if you want to succeed as a restaurant you better sell people what they already know and want to eat. FOX and MSNBC both do that, they are little different than a restaurant focused on Steak and another focused on Chinese cuisine. They aren’t there to convert people, they are there to do a good job of serving customers what they already wanted.
po says: Fox is also a political entity, one whose primary aim […] is to foster the interests, ideology and message of the right. Same for MSNBC.
I disagree, see above. Their primary aim is to make money. FOX happened to be run by a sociopath that does subscribe to many of the sociopathic “conservative” ideals, but I still believe his only goal was to make money, and he found an audience for his spittle, and exploited it, without regard to the fact that his product harms even his own customers.
po says: At some point, when Trump strayed from the path, Fox news turned against him, which cost them a huge money stream, but it was unavoidable considering their ties to the republican party.
Then did it really cost them a huge money stream, or was turning on Trump just rational game theory to minimize the damage and fallout Trump might do to their audience and future profits? Once FOX believed Trump was alienating much of their audience and would likely lose (Trump as an injured lion) they turned on him and ate him alive (the pride kills their weakest members without without mercy). I think you can’t tell the difference between these, you aren’t rational enough yourself to see rationality when it is on display.
po says: if the media acts as gatekeeper, decides what to report, how to report, it when to report it, whom to report it and how often to report it, how isn’t it an actor? How is it an effect?
The “media” is not an effect; I don’t know where you came to think I was saying that. I am saying their choices are driven by profits, ratings, and successfully entertaining some slice of viewers. Just like television shows and websites and magazines, the total audience is too diverse to appeal to everybody and trying to strike a balance that would have universal appeal (and offend nobody) doesn’t work, it just results in a bland and boring product nobody cares to see. That is the route to bankruptcy. It is like trying to bake a cake without gluten, sugar, milk, eggs, salt, or anything else that might exclude some customers: Nobody wants to eat the result!
To produce entertainment one must choose an audience that is a subset of the whole population, that share a common point of appeal. Democrats and Republicans are two such subsets of the American population. In politics, for the biggest audience, choose one or the other, not both. A few shows can gather a small audience of about 5% or 10% of the population by appealing to people like me that are interested more in facts than in parties, but if you want 50% of the viewers you have to lean to one side.
That is the effect; it is the following of money and self-interest that causes FOX to lean to one side and MSNBC (and others) to lean to the other. It is not actual faith in some ideology; the appearance of that is an effect, but they would throw the ideology under the bus in an instant if sustaining that appearance was going to bankrupt them or cost them a fortune. If you do not believe that, then I think you are deluded.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 10:41 am
SwM,
We are doing a kick-ass job in getting out the early voters here. Lines are long but we’ve got musical entertainment and barbeque grills doing food so one can enjoy the wait.
Clinton’s organizational skills are phenomenal.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 1:11 pm
Blouise,
Did our bit down here. Hopefully both Ohio and Florida will do the right thing.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Ari Berman @AriBerman 60m60 minutes ago
Ari Berman Retweeted Ari Berman
And now NC GOP is bragging about reducing black turnout. Disgusting https://twitter.com/RaleighReporter/status/795669824135430145 …
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 2:33 pm
blouise, That sounds like a fun time. Keeping my fingers crossed.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 9:05 pm
“I am more qualified to sense the will of my God if I am responsive to him.” — Po
That’s not quite what you said before, Po. You didn’t have the possessive adjective “my” before god in many similar prior statements.
You have claimed — many times — that you were more qualified to interpret the will of god due to reasons only you knew — without the possessive adjective.
The sincerity of your current stance is yet to be seen.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 9:14 pm
MM, there is enough evidence to show the collusion between the media and the parties, and it is not solely about the bottom line to the network, it is also about many other rewards, personal rewards for the people running the networks.
Blaming Fox News’republican bent on a psychopath is lazy, politics is psychopathic, and Fox news was created principally as a political instrument. That is a fact you cannot wish away. Everything Fox did was in support of a political ideology, with the aim of being profitable., obviously. It isn’t philanthropic, it is a business, all of politics is a business, a business of influence and power, which rests on monetary success. The least monetary successful the business, the least the power and influence.
The wikileaks are doing a great job proving just that, that the media isn’t just out there riding on every stream that promises the most revenue. Far from it, they are actively pushing a narrative, a political one, and benefit from it monetarily.
See the below:———–
In one email exchange between the DNC’s Mark Paustenbach (National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director) and the DNC’s Luis Miranda (Communications Director), Politico’s Peter Vogel appears to have passed along a story about Hillary Clinton’s fundraising campaign. While the content of Vogel’s story is unimportant, questions now arise as to why the Politico reporter felt the need to share his pre-published story with the DNC before sending it to his editor in chief.
Paustenbach wrote, “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it. Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”
Was it because he was wanting permission to publish the story? Was he fact-checking with the DNC before running it? Or was he likely colluding with the DNC to paint Clinton and her campaign in a favorable light? These questions and more are now being raised about the apparently cozy relationship Vogel maintained with the DNC. Paustenbach even implied he had the potential to sway the article by using the words “push back.”
In another telling email, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer received questions to be asked of Donald Trump in an interview just a few days ahead of Trump’s foreign policy speech. Yes, the Democratic National Committee crafted the questions Blitzer was supposed to ask Trump. Many members of the DNC contributed questions to Blitzer’s interview of the billionaire Republican presidential nominee, adding credibility to critics’ claims CNN is actually the Clinton News Network. Here’s a sampling of the questions Blitzer was charged with asking. “Who helped you write the foreign policy speech you’re giving tomorrow?” Also, likely playing to Trump’s dictatorial instincts in an attempt to trip him up, the DNC prompted Blitzer to ask, “What would you do if the military refused to listen to you?”
Many members of the DNC contributed questions to Blitzer’s interview of the megalomaniacal billionaire Republican presidential nominee, adding credibility to critics’ claims CNN is actually the Clinton News Network.
According to yet another email, it was CNN who was reaching out to the DNC for those questions. Lauren Dillon, the DNC’s Research Director, wrote, “CNN is looking for questions.” The latest Wikileaks email dump is trending on Twitter with the hashtag #DNCLeak2, and is taking off like a wildfire. The once private emails, now public for the whole world to see, serve to demonstrate how the DNC, Democrats, and members of the mainstream media all in unison work to prop up the left’s agenda. Here’s another example. Anthony (Tony) Coelho was the House Majority Whip from 1987-1989. He wrote Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, asking for a favor. Looking to help a friend get a job with HRC’s campaign, he asked Podesta to look into hiring Michael LaRosa. We’re sure that’s a pretty common practice in all areas of society, but it’s what he said about LaRosa that’s further contributing to the notion the mainstream media stumps for Clinton. He said of LaRosa, “he’s Chris Matthews political producer on Hardball,” and added, “He’d walk through fire for Hillary and would be a great hire on the campaign. He’s based in DC at the NBC News Bureau.” The man behind Matthews’ stories on MSNBC, his political producer, is a die-hard Clinton loyalist, which must certainly affect the stories MSNBC and NBC produce which are supposed to be unbiased.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 9:25 pm
And this
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/06/the-unrelenting-pundit-led-effort-to-delegitimize-all-negative-reporting-about-hillary-clinton/
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 9:33 pm
gbk
November 7, 2016 at 9:05 pm
“I am more qualified to sense the will of my God if I am responsive to him.” — Po
That’s not quite what you said before, Po. You didn’t have the possessive adjective “my” before god in many similar prior statements.
You have claimed — many times — that you were more qualified to interpret the will of god due to reasons only you knew — without the possessive adjective.
The sincerity of your current stance is yet to be seen.
——————————————–
GBK, I think to remember having said something the like of: ïf I believe in God, and my interlocutor doesn’t believe in God, I am, unavoidably, better attuned to God’s will. That’s pretty logical, ain’t it?
All I did above was explain it in greater detail.
If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, read his holy book and worship him, and I don’t, who between you and me would be better suited to knowing his will?
As I explain above, the God I worship is my God. It doesn’t mean that my god is everyone else’s God. What is clear however is that if my God doesn’t exist for you, you cannot then be offended that you are excluded from his realm.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 10:20 pm
Mike and SwM,
I would love to write that Ohio is going to give a win to Hillary but I simply don’t know … we weren’t supposed to go for Obama and we did, so, here’s hoping.
It has been great fun getting involved again.
LikeLike
November 8, 2016 at 1:51 am
“GBK, I think to remember having said something the like of: ïf I believe in God, and my interlocutor doesn’t believe in God, I am, unavoidably, better attuned to God’s will. That’s pretty logical, ain’t it?” — Po
No, it’s not, Po. You forget the crux of the issue — I should trust your attuned will because you claim so? That is not enough for me, Po.
I don’t think you remember anything you say, Po, after a few months. I think you write too much while hoping others forget what you’ve written. I think you modify your words whenever called on them to present a front of lucidity that does not exist.
Many don’t care of your zealotry, some do; many think your words are benign and point to understanding; and may those so lost find themselves in your stead surprised at the juncture forced on them.
LikeLike
November 8, 2016 at 2:12 am
“There is no linear reasoning unless you fail To start at a beginning. In other words, linear reasoning requires you to start your argumentation without providing a premise. The moment you have a premise, and go off it, you are looking to circle back to it. Making it a circular argument. Most people think that way. Especially you.” — Po
How Gordian. You state my claim as your own. Pretty lame, Po, even for you.
Can’t start without knowing the results? Makes perfect sense — it must be fun to posses such ignorance.
Good luck, Po.
LikeLike
November 8, 2016 at 8:00 am
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/07/the-flat-earth-set-helped-donald-trump-hijack-the-gop-and-crash-it-into-the-ground.html?via=desktop&source=facebook “It wasn’t really a coalition of angry working-class voters that led Trump’s flat-earth crusade. It was a coalition of angry rich media figures who know, even if they are wrong, there is a lot of money to be made denying reality. It’s Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Steve Bannon, Rush Limbaugh, and the usual carnival barkers, most of whom are too smart to believe their own nonsense. But they have made fortunes peddling bile and prejudice and the market continues to be good.” Hope they end up on TRUMP TV and not in the government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 8, 2016 at 10:39 am
Blouise and SwM,
My wife and I will be on line and by our TV screen all day and night today, biting our proverbial nails. Maybe LeBron will make a difference in Ohio.
LikeLike
November 8, 2016 at 11:19 am
No, it’s not, Po. You forget the crux of the issue — I should trust your attuned will because you claim so? That is not enough for me, Po.
—————————
GBK, the crux of the issue is that you have no say in my spirituality, nor do I have a say in yours. You have no access to my inner state in order to judge my spirituality. Same from me to you. What I say involves me and only me, and returns to me. You are not welcome to it, then why would you begrudge me my experience, my knowledge, my emotions and my religious reality simply because you choose to?
Again, God, in all intents and purposes in a personal Jesus. I spent a lifetime fleshing Him out for myself, building a relationship with Him, and have learned to hear Him and see Him wherever I look. That structure works for me and guides my life, THOUGH I know that, due to its personal nature, such religious outlook cannot be forced upon others (according to the tenets of my faith). It is why you have yet to hear me demand that anyone be subjected to my God. Frankly I do not care what other believe or disbelieve as long as they do not impose themselves, their faith or unfaith on me. As I have said previously, I’d rather we have a secular political and civil society and leave religion to the personal.
So I am not asking you to trust my attuned will, nor am I asking you to trust my political utterances…take it or leave it, I may be right or I may be wrong, though I am sure I am more often wrong than right…
What is clear, again, is that you cannot have a clearer insight into MY god than I do. Nor can I have a deeper insight in yours than you do.
As for my words, I think they are pretty consistent, as you yourself claim in order to support “my theocratic idiocy.” Yet you also claim I change them to avoid being caught. Well, I can revise my opinions if new info arises to convince me of the errors of my way. When I do, I however own up to my previous error or explain the context why I believed otherwise.
So far you are the only one here who has not been wrong about something 🙂
LikeLike
November 8, 2016 at 11:23 am
Can’t start without knowing the results? Makes perfect sense — it must be fun to posses such ignorance.
—————————————-
Reread everything I wrote.
You can, indeed, and you can derive a linear reasoning from that. But most of us go off a premise, sometimes even an unconscious one. These elections exemplify it greatly. Our premise Hillary is corrupt is reinforced every step to its logical conclusion, Trump is evil is both premise and conclusion: we discard competing ideas and reinforce ourselves with like information.
LikeLike
November 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm
po: Your examples of collusion are not evidence against the “pride of lions” formulation I put forward. Lions collude to hunt and bring down prey for mutual profit. Lions will also kill and cannibalize their own, should one of their own break a leg in the hunt.
>> Paustenbach wrote, “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it. Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”
So what? I think you are very uninformed; most news outlets, including many major papers like the New York Times, have for decades routinely notified people, well ahead of publication, of the stories they were about to publish, NOT to give them some warning but out of legal necessity. When media get sued for publishing something untruthful, one defense against malice aforethought is that they tried to get pushback and the subject refused to respond. It is why you see, in stores, “XYZ had no comment” or “we were unable to contact XYZ for comment before publication.” That is the publisher telling you he made an effort to avoid telling any lies, that he contacted the subject to let them pushback, and would have published such pushback along with the story, or killed the elements that the subject proved wrong.
Media outlets tend to publish surprise hit jobs only when they already have very solid proof of whatever charges they levy in their reports; like on-the-record video or audio recordings of sources. Short of that, if they are alluding to accusing somebody of wrong doing or criminality, they make a credible effort to prove they gave that somebody a chance to show them wrong, and the somebody rejected them.
This isn’t just routine practice, it is actually honorable reporting the way it should be done. It isn’t asking for permission, it is giving the DNC a chance to refute any charges in the article. It is an attempt to avoid telling a lie and slandering somebody; an attempt to report the truth.
****************************************
po says: Yes, the Democratic National Committee crafted the questions Blitzer was supposed to ask Trump.
Pretty lazy of CNN, but probably just self-interest, not an example of CNN being controlled by the DNC at all. Your quote says; it was CNN who was reaching out to the DNC for those questions.
Doesn’t that suggest the CNN could have asked any questions they wanted to ask, but was reaching out to others to look for good “gotcha” questions?
As I said before, media outlets tend to adopt a side, usually at least in part a business decision made by the gut of some CEO. However, CNN leaning Democratic does not mean they take orders from the DNC or Democratic politicians; just as I believe much more strongly in the ideals the Democratic party pretends to have, than I do in the ideals the Republican party pretends to have. I lean toward the Democratic pretense, but I am not controlled by the Democrats, or in collusion with them, or complicit in their corruptions of the system, of government, of our treaties with other countries (like our current clumsy pretenses of abiding by the Geneva Conventions).
Given that CNN leans Democrat (without being controlled by them), wouldn’t we just expect them to reach out to Democratic party leaders, campaign thinkers, etc to help them blindside a Republican politician, just because that is good television that might go viral?
And since that is obvious, shouldn’t we as well believe the Republican in question (this time, Trump) should expect such shenanigans and be ready for them, thus taking the “surprise” out of the surprise attack and rendering it either moot, or making it backfire.
The questions you pose would be easily deflected by a prepared candidate.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 6:11 am
“somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children
shout,
But there is no joy in Mudville”
Hillary got better than she deserved – she should have been remanded.
But it is the rest of us who will pay for her malfeasance.
When did you know it was going off the tracks?
I may be slow to pick up. But I knew it was bad when Florida was showing over 8 million voted with Clinton nearly 200,000 behind and the talking heads were saying it was too close too call! Really, Too Close to call?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 9, 2016 at 8:39 am
BFM: Sounds about right. I guess I put too much stock in Nate Silver and 538. Stock markets should be interesting today.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 12:19 pm
BFM, everyone has their method to their madness, mine is historically/religious. I knew it when Trump was running rings around his fellow republicans in the primary. WHy? Because for the religious, everything is symbolic, and those symbols keep returning through time and space. When Mike speaks of the return of the reich, he is linking to that, however, he is not tying into the why. The religious always go back to the why, which leads to God, and all of divine will is expressed in history. Where some see randomness or cyclical runs, we see causes and consequences, and they are always the same and can be mapped. There was a moment Trump crossed over, and it is a moment of rapture, one that binds crowds, binds the tongue of the opponents and becomes the single current around which everything revolves.
What Mm saw as skill in Trump’s hands, I saw as other forces working through him, which is why I said this is greater than Trump, Hillary or even Bernie. This is about all of us, this is about timing, this is coalescing of forces, this is about America and whether or not it has doom in store or blessings.
In that, it mattered little he was a bumbling fool, it mattered little the tapes and the taxes, it mattered little the “some are rapists” or “deport Muslims”, just as Rubio and Cruz were frustrated in the debates, so would all other opponents be.
This is why I never bought into Bernie because I knew he was cast into the play as a supporting actor, but it was not about him, it was about Trump. Of all the options available to him, he could audition for the leading role, seriously, go against the democratic party and go independent, and I wondered whether he would, but he didn’t, and I knew even more where we were heading.
In that, it was always about Jesus, it wasn’t about the priests, or the soldiers, or the disciples. Though it was also about the crowd, it is always about the people.
And it became clear to me that it was not about Hillary either. It was about Trump, she was the necessary foil that Bush was to Obama. There was no Obama without that Bush.
Then came Wikileaks, then the media, then the FBI. And it was not about Assange, nor was it about Comey. It was still about Trump. It was about everyone doing just enough to feed the machine that would elect Trump. 10 years from now we will ask Comey, and as Rumsfeld was unable to make sense of his actions, Comey will struggle to explain these moments. When the fumes of the empire dying rises, everyone becomes intoxicated.
But, it was still about the supreme court, the FBI, the media and Hillary. It was about the hypocrites exposed, it was, as He says, using His evil servants one against the other, for otherwise, they will keep seeding corruption into the world. In that, it was Bush taking out Saddam, and it was Hillary taking out Gaddafi. It is through Trump for he is the bad guy to take out the bad guys…but it is too about Bernie, for he lacks the courage of the convictions he claimed, the pied piper.
But before that I knew it when Bush was running and everything conspired to give him the presidency. And it was confirmed with 9/11, and it became clear it had to be Bush for it to be 9/11 which ushered Rome spreading and starving its city to feed its territories, which brought Flint, and unemployment and Detroit and Milwaukee and the micro of police warfare against its citizens for there was that macro of military warfare on the globe. Which brought Obama, the Messiah Black who sat in the master’s chair, used the master’s pen, spoke the master’s words, yielded the master’s tools to master the master’s slaves.
And it is Trump for it was Obama. The pendulum is swinging widely for these the eras of extremes, extreme winds and extreme floods, extreme wealth and extreme lack, extreme ideas, extreme actions, echoing extremely…
But in that, there is huge blessings. In that, there is the opportunity of the gathering of the oppressed, of the coming together and fighting for one another across gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, background… it is opportunity for solidarity. That is the blessing and the challenge, either we take it and turn course or we don’t and sink forever.
And in that, it is not about Trump, it is about us, about agency, it is about the people.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 1:25 pm
So the final numbers for #ElectionDay are:
231,556,622 eligible voters
46.9% didn’t vote
25.6% voted Clinton
25.5% voted Trump
Wow.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 1:42 pm
@po
Thank you for your remarks. It must be very comforting to see a pattern that explains the past and the future.
Guys like me who place such store in logic, science and statistics are left in a bit of a muddle about what comes next.
I think Greenwald at the Intercept has some interesting things to say about the election:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
I suppose many of us take the lessons we want. Say what you will about sexism, racism and all the rest.
This is a country that spent about a billion dollars to shore up wall street and the banks. This is a country that let them, through foreclosure, throw 13 million families out of their homes.
This a country where the elites held the jobs and lives of working class families so cheaply they told us that loss of jobs was a natural process of free markets and globalization.
But that is not the natural, inevitable result. They made choices that cost workers. There were other choices to be made. Germany has a thriving manufacturing base. Germany has some of the highest paid manufacturing jobs in the world.
Trump does not have the answers. But he called the problem. Given the choice between a leader who denies the problem or a leader who identifies the problem and calls for answers – who do you choose.
Americans made that choice. Too bad Trump is just a hustler – telling the mark what he wants to hear.
In 25 words or less, I think a key point is that a party that cannot make a place for ordinary, middle class and lower middle class people, cannot rule.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 3:07 pm
BFM: Trump is just a hustler – telling the mark what he wants to hear.
Perhaps. One of his themes throughout sounds authentic to me and related to his core means of success. He is a very successful builder; and I think anybody that denies that is blinded by partisanship.
In his victory speech he mentions roads, bridges, buildings, airports and infrastructure in general, he has been mentioning it from the beginning, and I think it (including “building a wall”) is a true part of his core value system. If he follows through on that, even using debt to pay for it, I think it pays off in jobs. Nobody builds an American road, bridge or tunnel using foreign labor, it will create American jobs. If the infrastructure is well chosen and not a bridge to nowhere, it magnifies the reach of commerce and commutes, it provides new routes for goods, it has positive economic impact beyond just creating jobs. It can create suburbs; it can renovate neighborhoods, it can prevent disasters and save lives from the likes of Katrina and Flint Michigan, and there are many dozens of cities with poisoned water like Flint. That would be “good debt” in the public interest.
Regardless of his other boondoggles and frauds in business, Trump really has spent 45 years at the head of an organization that designs and builds construction projects on budget, on time, and that he successfully rents to willing customers. To me he has proven that ability time and again, and if Trump really wants to be the “construction” President I would be fine with that; at least we will get something useful out of it. If he finds a way to kill the trade deals then all the better, I hate them (as did Bernie).
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 3:22 pm
A young Latino woman just showed me the bruises on her arm. She was protesting at a Trump rally and was beaten. Sickening…….
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 3:42 pm
BFM: … they told us that loss of jobs was a natural process of free markets and globalization.
But it is! If you believe in logic, then “free markets” and “globalization” on this planet means you can employ labor for 10% of what it costs you to employ Americans; even taking into account the shipping costs and communications costs, with nearly 0% of the financial risk of employing Americans, such as wrongful injury/death lawsuits, sexual harassment lawsuits, suits over unsafe working conditions, discrimination lawsuits, etc.
“free markets” is the freedom to abuse workers and force them to work 12 hour days in near slave labor conditions. That is why our discount stores have cheap clothing, it is produced under near slavery conditions; like sneakers, like Trump’s clothing line, like iphones and computer circuit boards and displays and integrated circuits, like steel in China.
The loss of American jobs really is the natural outcome of providing a route by which corporations, both local and abroad, can circumvent American employment laws and still sell their products to Americans. Likewise, it provides a way for local corporations to, for a few hundred thousand dollars, transform themselves into foreign corporations and thereby circumvent American taxation (and to a large extent American law enforcement scrutiny). That’s “globalization,” the hunt for the absolutely cheapest places on Earth to exploit for profit.
How could that NOT cost American jobs?
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 3:51 pm
“In his victory speech he mentions roads, bridges, buildings, airports and infrastructure in general, he has been mentioning it from the beginning, and I think it (including “building a wall”) is a true part of his core value system. If he follows through on that, even using debt to pay for it, I think it pays off in jobs. ”
Now is the time to use debt. These are expenses that will have to be paid in any case. Until recently interest rates were at historic lows – even negative real interest rates. And there is likely still slack in the economy so there will be no crowding out of investment by government spending.
This is the ideal time for government investment in infrastructure that we have to have. The cost is as low as it will ever be. The distortion of markets is minimal. And there is the additional payoff of jobs needed by ordinary workers.
There is the question of low unemployment rate. But that is probably answered by the low labor force participation rate – the low unemployment rate is hiding individuals who do want to work but have given up searching for work.
If Trump actually invests in the structures that make so much possible in this country then more power to him.
It is high time politicians were real about government expenditures.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 3:56 pm
“@swarthmoremom A young Latino woman just showed me the bruises on her arm. She was protesting at a Trump rally and was beaten. Sickening…….”
This is of course appalling. The intolerance coupled with violence is perhaps the main reason to oppose Trump.
The question is what follows. Can Trump implement an administration with tolerance and the rule of law?
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 3:57 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-win-is-a-grand-slam-for-wall-street-banks-151229234.html Deregulation
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm
Lots of scared people….. Apparently Rudy G is going to be AG so maybe they should be.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 5:23 pm
“In his victory speech he mentions roads, bridges, buildings, airports and infrastructure in general, he has been mentioning it from the beginning, and I think it (including “building a wall”) is a true part of his core value system.”
BFM,
Perhaps you should investigate further. He believes in privatizing all of those vital structures. Tolls on everything to private firms.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 6:10 pm
I heard today that Trump is talking to French guillotine manufacturers.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 6:14 pm
@Mike Spindell:
I believe you are quoting MM.
My remarks were that it would be wonderful if Trump did invest in infrastructure. It makes excellent economic sense to invest in infrastructure at todays interest rates, considering that we will have to maintain them and spend that money anyway. The employment effect is gravy.
It would not surprise me that Trump would try to privatize infrastructure. The general argument for privatization is plausible – competition should reduce cost, increase quality or both.
But, as I have mentioned before, I don’t know of a single instance where privatization has produced the anticipated benefits. On the contrary, it is easy to find examples where the drive for profits has reduced performance or quality while corruption in the procurement process has increased costs.
But you have hit on a point. I don’t know much about the details of Trump’s policy proposals. I have found enough to object to the candidate without delving too deeply.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 6:19 pm
@bron98: “I heard today that Trump is talking to French guillotine manufacturers.”
That is terrible. As independent contractors, Executioners should be able to choose their own tools. And why should we pay for their tools anyway?
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 7:02 pm
I agree that infrastructure building is a great way to make America great again, but I remember that Obama spent much of his tenure trying to do just that, foiled he was at every turn.
I am not sure how Trump would make it happen. Unlike Democrats who are generally united behind the president, the currents that crisscross the republican party will be even more assertive in a Trump presidency. Not only will he be undermined by his own vice-president, he will also be undermined by the Rubio camp, the Cruz camp and every other camp that fought him tooth and nail on the way to the presidency. Not only will the democrats make him a one term president, so will the Republicans.
Additionally, Trump is utterly unfamiliar with the process of governing, and I doubt he can learn effectively. Either he will have to delegate much of his executive decisionmaking, which he stated, or he will try to micromanage everything, which he has not the skills or the patience for.
He will lose his mind trying to fight congress while presidencing… this is gonna be insane.
As for privatizing, I think that would doom him. The single best thing he may offer to his voters is jobs, and American jobs at that, the moment he start privatizing is the moment he starts outsourcing (and even projects won by local companies, would be projects where foreign money, management and profits would be found in.) I can see the democrats floating the news that the company building the bridges in Minnesota is actually Chinese owned…and is linked to Trump industries somehow.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 7:04 pm
And I think the union and local communities will also fight him tooth and nail about that, not even mentioning congress.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Trump does not have the answers. But he called the problem. Given the choice between a leader who denies the problem or a leader who identifies the problem and calls for answers – who do you choose.
Americans made that choice. Too bad Trump is just a hustler – telling the mark what he wants to hear.
In 25 words or less, I think a key point is that a party that cannot make a place for ordinary, middle class and lower middle class people, cannot rule.
—————————–
Simply!
That is the single lesson to be learned. Everything else is collateral to that.
Glenn Greenwald frames it well.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 7:49 pm
hillary was too drunk and classless to give a concession speech last night. she sent that weasel podesta out to tell the help the votes were still being counted at the same time she drunk dialed trump to concede. hillary hates the little people. she should have stayed home and baked cookies. she might have been a winner as a baker. she is a horrible politician.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 8:09 pm
MoreMozart
November 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm
po: Your examples of collusion are not evidence against the “pride of lions” formulation I put forward. Lions collude to hunt and bring down prey for mutual profit. Lions will also kill and cannibalize their own, should one of their own break a leg in the hunt.
————————-
MM, you got it wrong. Colluding to benefit from hunting is not the same as being wired to group hunt. Lions live in pride and hunt as pride. They don’t have a choice in it. In fact, it is the lionesses who do most of the hunting, and they also teach the young males to hunt and live as a pride. That is not colluding, that is part of the structure of lionhood. Same as the game, which lives in groups because the group is strength and give us a better chance at escaping. A female lion on her own struggles to eat, a lone antelope dies faster.
Also, lions do not routinely kill and cannibalize their own. They kill intruding strange lions but do not hunt them for food. Nor do they kill one of their own when injured. Not as a norm.
As for noticing a subject of an article, there is a difference between letting one know about an article on them and requesting comment and actually submitting one’s article to the subject and requesting editorializing. You know the difference.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 12:07 am
From the NYT we have “Most strikingly, Mr. Trump won his biggest margins among middle-income white voters, according to exit polls, a revolt not only of the white working class but of the country’s vast white middle class. ”
Can you imagine that? Democrats, led by Clinton, lost the white middle class. Do you suppose they are all racist? Because I do not.
If white women looked past Trumps sexism and white middle class looked past his racism, then what could they see in Trump?
I have made my view clear – he gave serious voice to their economic concerns.
But I have already admitted, we tend to see what we want to believe in all this.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 12:50 am
I agree with you, BFM, I suspect political/social scientists will be mining the trove of information these elections gave us. Everything that was expected turned out the opposite, including Latinos, Muslims and Blacks supporting Trump.
I think the best thing we all can do is for the winners to be magnanimous and the losers to be humble and thoughtful. 50% of the voters voting opposite one’s way should give one pause for a minute. Time is an effective actor, if we let here do her job.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 6:18 am
Mike: That was me that said that; BFM was responding to me.
I haven’t seen any proposals from Trump to privatize infrastructure, but I haven’t sought any, either.
The jobs for building the projects will still be necessary; and the Democrats still have 47 (maybe 48) Senate seats, they can easily filibuster any such privatization if they want.
If they cannot muster a 40 senator filibuster with 47 senators, then they are traitors to the DNC, right? Or maybe the DNC will think up a way to excuse them for not standing in the path of Trump, so they can sell us out but it isn’t their fault and people can vote for them again in 2018 and 2020. They seem to be so good at that kind of spin, and Democrats seem to be so eager to buy it!
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 6:23 am
po: >> Nor do [lions] kill one of their own when injured. Not as a norm.
To quote Trump, “wrong.” I can watch an NGC documentary as well as the next person, I have seen this captured on film. You don’t get to make up your own definitions, and you don’t get to make up your own facts, either.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 10:56 am
BFM: Can you imagine that? Democrats, led by Clinton, lost the white middle class. Do you suppose they are all racist? Because I do not.
Agreed. and, in the Greenwald article you pointed out, Glenn says: “People often talk about “racism/sexism/xenophobia” vs. “economic suffering” as if they are totally distinct dichotomies. Of course there are substantial elements of both in Trump’s voting base, but the two categories are inextricably linked: The more economic suffering people endure, the angrier and more bitter they get, the easier it is to direct their anger to scapegoats. Economic suffering often fuels ugly bigotry.”
Greenwald also addresses the notion that they were voting for a fellow racist: … one must confront the fact that not only was Barack Obama elected twice, but he is poised to leave office as a highly popular president: now viewed more positively than Reagan. America wasn’t any less racist and xenophobic in 2008 and 2012 than it is now. […] As the New York Times’s Nate Cohn put it: “Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story.” Matt Yglesias acknowledged that Obama’s high approval rating is inconsistent with depictions of the U.S. as a country “besotted with racism.”
BFM: I have made my view clear – he gave serious voice to their economic concerns.
I believe essentially the same thing. But then you say,
BFM: But I have already admitted, we tend to see what we want to believe in all this.
A minor quibble, but I fail to see how what I “want to believe” is in this scenario at all. By analogy, I once wasted six months of full time work on a technical idea before I had finally done enough work to realize I was chasing a dead end, and there was nothing salvageable in that six months. This was certainly not what I wanted to believe, but I think it was the truth, arrived at rationally.
What we want to be true does not have to corrupt our reason; I think we can arrive at a logically cohesive and coherent explanations that are the opposite of what we want to be true, but we feel forced to believe in them because nothing else can plausibly fit the facts.
The lower class, lower middle and middle middle classes in this country (and in others like the UK) are economically distressed. It isn’t plausible that the whites that voted for Obama and think well of him are now driven to Trump out of racism; they are driven to Trump despite his racism because he is promising change. Trump beat Hillary using the same playbook as Obama; promising change. Chances are that, like Obama, he won’t be able to really deliver very much change, but the playbook was the same. (under Obama we got some new civil rights for gays; including military service and marriage; I consider those unqualified wins.)
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm
MM says:
To quote Trump, “wrong.” I can watch an NGC documentary as well as the next person, I have seen this captured on film. You don’t get to make up your own definitions, and you don’t get to make up your own facts, either.
——————————
Sorry mate, that is your beat. You are making up general facts/truth based on your subjective/single exposure.
Lions do not, as a norm, perform euthanasia. Nor do animals, as norm, perform euthanasia. That’s what nature is for, she has that covered.
I have watched nature documentaries for decades(which makes me, GBK, more attuned to nature’s will :), which is what I have been doing a lot lately when I finally gave up on MSNBC , and not once have I seen or heard the like. Not once!
Doesn’t mean it does not happen but am willing to bet my seat at Blouise’s next party that if it does happen, it is the exception and certainly not the rule.
As for definition, of the two of us only one created a definition out of nothing and offered it as a standard term, and it ain’t me. It is only when I requested a dictionary definition, after you chided me for not accepting the dictionary definition, that you revealed you invented the term. There is only a (real) dichotomy or a false dichotomy, “forced dichotomy” is akin to being half pregnant, it is either positive and it belongs to pregnancy or it is negative and it belongs to unpregnancy.
Seems you are saying “forced dichotomy” belongs to real dichotomy, while I am saying forced dichotomy belongs to false dichotomy? Although,as your freshly minted word, you should get to define it, I agree with that.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 1:14 pm
>> You are making up general facts/truth based on your subjective/single exposure.
Liar.
>> Lions do not, as a norm, perform euthanasia.
Who said anything about euthanasia? Lions kill injured animals that would have difficulty fighting back, and they see their own injured as such, so they eat them. It isn’t about ending the pain of somebody else, it is about eating meat.
>> only one created a definition out of nothing and offered it as a standard term
Fuck off, I did no such thing. I offered you an original combination of words that described what you were actually talking about! I was trying to help you make an argument and now you are trying to use my help against me. Asshole.
A forced dichotomy is clearly an actual dichotomy, the word “forced” describes how a very real dichotomy came to be. It is indeed a freshly minted combination of an adjective and a noun, that is true. I never claimed otherwise. However, the words mean precisely what the dictionary says they mean, and “forced” modifies dichotomy in the way native English speakers would expect it to. So I am not assigning some weird meaning to it, as you do by redefining “false dichotomy”, I am explaining the meaning of “forced dichotomy” to a person that apparently has a severe lack of language comprehension.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 1:36 pm
You are right, MM, you did not say euthanasia, that was the only comprehension I could derive considering that the other one cannibalism among lions is very, very unusual.
http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-news-4-2-lion-cannibalism-24098.html
As for “forced dichotomy”, i think it would have been clearer had you said from the onset that “forced dichotomy” was your invention. Instead, you offered a dictionary definition of false dichotomy alongside a definition of forced dichotomy that you implied was also an established, standard definition. You even chided me for going against an established definition, hence the whole point of your calling me a liar.
It is only after I demanded you offer the dictionary definition of forced dichotomy (which again you chided me for not looking up) that you finally spilled the beans.
As I said, only one of us lied, by insinuation, dissimulation and deception, and it surely ain’t me .
Furthermore, what type of Trumpian mind empowers you to challenge my subjective framing of “forced dichotomy” when it rose unchecked from your own subjectivity?
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 1:44 pm
po: I chided you for not looking up “false dichotomy”, I never told you to look up “forced dichotomy”. You are struggling against your own lack of comprehension of logic and language. There were no “beans to spill”, I said What you are describing is better described as a “forced dichotomy”. I did not say it is the definition of a forced dichotomy, and I quoted it, as would be standard, to indicate it was a phrase to replace another phrase, namely “false dichotomy”. Fuck you again.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Alright, I read back the timeline and I do agree that I misunderstood you. Seems like, indeed, you did not suggest what I understood, that is “forced dichotomy” is an official idea that “officially” better frames what I was talking about than does “false dichotomy.”
Still, my point about false dichotomy still stands, because I refuse the premise that only two choices are available.
It is a disagreement of interpretation, and it is obvious that your interpretation of the situation is not better than mine. A good parallel is the notion of God. You denying there is no God does not make my statement there is one a lie, both statements are subjective statements. It is as ridiculous to call me a liar based on it as my calling you a liar for denying the existence of God. Even worse.
If the topic was “none other than one of these candidates can be elected president in these waning days of these elections”, I would have agreed with you. However, my statement was broader than that, it refuses the holistic and wholesale premise that we have only two options and these options are these two candidates. That is obviously fallacious. If there is a dichotomy now, it is because the false dichotomy has been accepted at some point in the past and extended to now. There was an agreement that led to this. I refuse the whole premise and therefore he conclusion. To me, there is no dichotomy, only a false one. The fact you can’t see that makes you smugly obtuse.
And finally, by definition and by usage, false dichotomy agrees more with me than it does you. Your stance actually proves the falseness of this dichotomy by artificially, and therefore falsely shrinking the field to only two.
.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 6:22 pm
po: Be as wrong as you like, both on religion and language, being free means being free to be stupidly obtuse and deny the facts. a False Dichotomy means only two viable choices are presented when there actually exists other viable choices. In this Presidential race in the USA in October of 2016, either the Democrat or the Republican was going to be President. Period. All other votes were protest votes with zero chance of winning. Any pretense that was not a dichotomy violates the definition of dichotomy and renders the word “dichotomy” meaningless. This is a real dichotomy. And I was trying to help you and you attacked me. If you were a dog, I would understand and forgive you. (In fact I have been bitten by a dog I was determined to help, and I completed the task of freeing him anyway.) It would be nice if you could try to be just a little more rational than a dog.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm
I guess if I have learned anything from this election, it is that trying to help people understand anything is a pointless exercise and waste of my time.
LikeLike
November 11, 2016 at 12:30 am
Obviously you have yet to learn anything, MM.
Your own statement:
A false dichotomy is when more than one actual choice or option exists, and the interlocutor presents only two choices as if they are the only choices
From the dictionary: A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.[citation needed]
You do notice how you, along with the wiki entry, both speak solely of option, right? The fact that we have more than two options, yet only those two options are considered? Well… how does it differ from my statement that it is a false dichotomy to claim only Trump and Hillary are options when other options are available?
It doesn’t that’s how.
But I did notice that you further qualified your comment in order to win by dissimulation, which is lying. You added “viable” to option in order to narrow the scope of the topic. All of those qualifiers, “chance of winning”, ” was gonna be president” are after the fact cheating tools you are adding to win dishonorably. I never spoke of viability, I only spoke of option. I only spoke of the system being built to make us believe there are only two options at every stage of the race, not just in 2016, not just 2 days before the election, not just after all other options have been kept down. The system sold us on 2 options only, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, last year. That was a false dichotomy 10 years ago, 5 years ago, last year and today.
You weren’t trying to help me, you disagreed with my argument and offered yours, because as usual you had to be right. But, firend, you were wrong.
Leave the “forced” out of it and show how my false dichotomy is wrong if it agrees with your definition and the dictionary’s.
LikeLike
November 11, 2016 at 6:53 am
I think “viable” is automatically implied to anybody with a brain; I had to include it explicitly for you when I detected the lack of a brain. Of course, another option is we could vote Green, or Libertarian, or write in Bernie Sanders. Another option was to stay home, another was to vote for nobody.
Those are not viable options, the central question is whether there was anybody to vote for besides Hillary or Trump that could become President, and although I completely agree that nine months ago we had other viable choices, and it might have even been possible for a Libertarian or Green or fifth party candidate to capture a viable spot, by August all those options were dead. The only two people that had any chance of winning were Hillary and Trump. Any vote for anybody else, like my own for Bernie Sanders, was a symbolic vote of conscience, with zero chance of influencing the election. The people that cast votes for Johnson and Stein were also casting symbolic votes for people they knew would not win. A dichotomy is about being faced with precisely two possible outcomes and zero alternative outcomes.
Trump v. Hillary was a false dichotomy in January, there were viable alternatives. But just because it was a false dichotomy then does not make it a false dichotomy forever, just as being healthy in January does not ensure you are sill healthy in August. Our choices in life continuously appear, disappear, and evolve. By August our political choices had become a true dichotomy.
LikeLike
November 11, 2016 at 12:05 pm
Okay, thank you for agreeing with me that time is a factor in this issue. Additionally, your usage of Viable proves exactly my point all along, which you are obviously too dense to see.
Here you are making your whole argument about that moment, in you mind, when no other option, viable or not, was possible. My argument, once again, and it is easy to see by rereading my original post, is that the dichotomy, or the claim there was one, started even before these elections. That systematically, we operate within a democratic system that erects itself as a dichotomy between the republicans and the democrats, which is why you supported Bernie, because his run effectively was calling bullshit on the so called dichotomy we have. So Bernie’s run, and your support of him was essentially stating this is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. Just as Jill Stein’s run and my support of her states the same thing.
Additionally, when did Trump’s run become a viable option? At the start? At the end? According to most, up until the end Trump would lose!
Now when did it turn into a dichotomy? For you I assume right when Bernie was excluded? Or did you still hold hope Hillary would be indicted and Bernie would step up again? Did you hope Biden would throw his hat in the ring? When did you lose hope and accept the status quo? When did you go from thinking of it as a false dichotomy to accepting it as a dichotomy? Either way once your candidate was out, you took your spot in line.. Since my candidate was never out, I still held hope something would happen to shake the race and let her in, which means that until the end, this whole charade was and is still a false dichotomy. Which it still will be next elections when we resume running one against the other.
Furthermore, elections are just not about the candidate, when I cast my vote for Stein, I was voting for the green party hoping to help them get the 5% needed to step in as valid option thereon, it was a vote against the false dichotomy of the duopoly. Which logically extends, once again, my whole point. The false dichotomy is not a personal one, it isn’t about one candidate versus the other, it is one party against the other and everyone accepting that those are the only two options we have.
It is not that difficult really, just stop being willfully dumb and understand the world outside of the bubble of your ego.
LikeLike
November 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm
po: Nope. Bernie had a chance to win the Democratic nomination; my support of him was also due to the true dichotomy that emerged in that election; it was going to be Bernie or Hillary. It didn’t start that way, there were more options, but they failed and left two. Eventually (by hook and crook) Bernie failed too, and the singular choice was made. The dichotomy began when the outcome of both primaries was certain beyond doubt.
It is only my opinion, but to me Trump went from an unknown to a viable candidate the day he knocked out Jeb Bush (or Jeb knocked himself out, however you want to see it.) To me, the fact that Trump could score 30% of the Republican vote and Jeb was in the 1% range, despite over $150M to spend for Jeb and almost nothing spent by Trump, was too statistically improbable to be chance. I did not know Trump would win, at that point, but in my mind if he could knock out Bush he could probably knock out anybody.
I admit, I thought Trump would lose the week before the election, I won’t forget that mistake or gloss over it. I thought he absolutely had to trash the hell out of Hillary to win, I thought he had to do that before early voting started and he had not. I was mistaken about that, he spent $25M at the last minute in Michigan, but other than that, no shit storm was needed.
IMO your support of Stein was non-viable way back in July, as non-viable as Sanders. I voted for Sanders out of conscience, with no strategic value, and I do not regret it; but I knew when I cast my vote that it would not be counted. I had no delusion that he could actually win the election, I had no hopes anybody would ever count my vote for any reason, but in my memories I like to have done what I consider the right thing even when nobody is watching.
After the primaries were over, Trump was always a viable option, so was Hillary. Nobody else was going to be President. The popular vote polling had him consistently down a few percentage points, but as Nate Silver pointed out right before the election, we have had 3, 4 and 5 point errors numerous times in past elections with the same modern polling techniques. Gore was expected to lose the popular vote by 3, and won it instead.
My ego has nothing to do with the facts. In fact I have less ego than you, I am at least willing to admit when I am wrong, I see no such willingness in you, and it is ONLY your ego standing in the way of admitting this was NOT a false dichotomy.
LikeLike
November 11, 2016 at 9:44 pm
Mm
The fact that you can tell my dreams speaks of hubris beyond the realm of the comprehensible. Of all the options available,
1- I genuinely think this is a false dichotomy and I am right
2- I genuinely think this is a false dichotomy and I am wrong
3- I am certain this isn’t a false dichotomy and I am right (in which case I am lying)
4- I am certain this isn’t a false dichotomy and I am wrong (and based on usage and definition you are wrong and I am right)
5- You genuinely think this isn’t a false dichotomy and you are right
6- You genuinely think this isn’t a false dichotomy and you are wrong
7- You are certain this is a false dichotomy and you are right (in which case you are lying but still right)
8- You are certain this is a false dichotomy and you are wrong (in which case you are lying but still wrong)
You picked the one that requires you to know exactly what goes on in my head, my exact intent, then call me a liar because as you looked into my head you could see exactly which option I really chose.
As for acknowledging you are wrong, what choice do you have? Your error is well documented. You were even told often that this moment would come. The least you can do it acknowledge it, you get no cookies for it.
As for me, once again, I am not wrong. I am only wrong if we limit the argument to the narrowest scope possible and establish it in your choice of arbitrary timeline and scope. However, that is neither the timeline nor the scope. My original argument was not made according to your subjective choice of timeline and scope, it was made according to mine, and as I keep saying, that timeline includes the systematic structure of the duopoly, which means every presidential elections since when Ralph Nader was a candidate, since when Ross Perot was a candidate, every election when the debates exclude 3rd parties and the media refuse to cover them.
WE are not talking about the same thing. You are speaking of a moment in time and the conditions attached to it, I am speaking of time itself. I am talking about 1990’s, you are talking about 1998 and demanding that I be wrong because the conditions in 1998 are not, in your (subjective, as the sources you quote to stake your claim actually agree with me) view , as I stated. Well, I am not talking about 1998, I am talking about 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and all of 2000’s through 2016, 2057 IF the same conditions that started in 1990 are still ongoing.
LikeLike