We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, November 13. 2016
His "off-mike" rant (h/t reader and Legal Insurrection)
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Trump, the pu$$y grabbing, wall building, climate change denying, healthcare abolishing, tax dodging, shit spewing demagogue
That's not how we would have phrased it, but it's hard to argue with the point.
but it's hard to argue with the point.
Are you going to argue with Jonathan Pie's point that the Democrats have largely given up logical arguments in favor of the incessant otherizing- a.k.a. racist/bigot/deplorable/unredeemable/sexist/stupid/Islamophobe/homophobe [I'm sure there are more] -mantra? And that that Johathan Pie considers the otherizing mantra unproductive, as it simply shuts people up? I doubt it, because you incessantly resort to the otherizing mantra yourself.
That otherizing mantra-attacking the person- is an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is not a not valid argument.
I am reminded of so many Demos saying that Trump was such a _____ [fill in the blank] candidate, in contrast to Romney or McCain or Bush or Reagan, who were good people. Then one looks at what Demos did when those people were campaigning. Even some Democrats admit this. Bill Maher Admits Liberals' Big Mistake Attacking 'Honorable' Bush, Romney.
Note that Johnathan Pie's otherizing comment refers also to Trump supporters, not just to Trump.
Gringo: Are you going to argue with Jonathan Pie's point that the Democrats have largely given up logical arguments in favor of the incessant otherizing
Clinton is actually a wonk, meaning she does make logical arguments. However, elections are won by messaging, and she was lousy at messaging.
The larger point of cutting off reasoned discussion with the white working class who feel marginalized is valid. There was a Trump voter interviewed on one of the networks from Pennsylvania who didn't like Clinton, but hoped he would be able to keep his ObamaCare. And while Trump was against it at the time, the Obama Administration saved the U.S. auto industry from implosion during the financial crisis, but got little credit for it.
sexist or racist, some of them are
Even a small number was sufficient to tip the election in closely contested states (though she is nearly 2 million ahead in the popular vote, and counting). In a close election, one can always point to many factors that make a difference on the margins. Russia hacking and leaking private emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC had some effect. Comey's letters at the last minute had a substantial impact. Ultimately, millions of Americans voted for the Internet troll, and that's where the ultimate responsibility lies.
This brings up a bit of a sidebar. When new technologies are introduced, it can disrupt the political system. The printing press resulted in vast changes to society. The introduction of radio allowed Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt to strongly influence their societies in new ways. Television led to McCarthy and the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Talk radio and the conservative movement were long intertwined. Cable news resulted in rage TV. And now the Internet has led to revolutions around the world, and the election of someone who tweets grudges at 3 AM.
Gringo: That otherizing mantra-attacking the person- is an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is not a not valid argument.
That's not quite correct, or at least not clear. That presumes an argument, as opposed to simply ignoring people's concerns, which is closer to the mark. As for ad hominem itself, it is not always a fallacy, such as when discussing qualifications for a particular job.
Gringo: I am reminded of so many Demos saying that Trump was such a ___ [fill in the blank] candidate, in contrast to Romney or McCain or Bush or Reagan, who were good people. Then one looks at what Demos did when those people were campaigning.
Democrats are a large disparate group. You can probably find Democrats who said all sorts of things. The Bush Administration shaded the truth in the run-up to the Iraq War, assuming it would work out in the end. Bush certainly thought he was doing the right thing for his country, even though his judgment was clouded by ideology. He never really got a handle on the situation until he pushed aside some of his advisers. Bush deserved a fair amount of criticism. McCain was a hero, but damaged his reputation by choosing Palin as his V.P. Romney is the neighbor family who show up with a cake when you are having troubles.
...she is nearly 2 million ahead in the popular vote.... Totally irrelevant. Anyone who understands how and why the U.S. system was crafted knows it's irrelevant. Up to now, I thought you were better informed than to try the popular vote ruse, especially on the MF readership.
BillH: ...she is nearly 2 million ahead in the popular vote.... Totally irrelevant.
It was a parenthetical. In any case, while it's not relevant to who won, it is relevant to the question of whether voters did or did not support Clinton in the election. Most voters did.
BillH: Anyone who understands how and why the U.S. system was crafted knows it's irrelevant.
The Electoral College was the companion compromise to the 3/5 compromise. Direct election would not have been supported by slave-owning states.
I posted this on FB when it was below a million hits. Now at over 75 million hits-why? Truth!
His most poignant line INMHO was "we don't debate anymore because we won the culture wars. So, if your on the right your a freak. You're evil, you're a racist, you're stupid. You're a basket of deplorables. How do you think people are going to vote when you talk to them like that?"
Was this moment when PC changes?
One thing Z-Bot cannot and will not address (assuming it'll pollute this thread like all the others) is what Pie did not, a point glaring by its omission.
What is leftism's point? What is its fundamental synchronization with the nature of negative rights, led by human liberty, that makes them forever negative?
No leftist can answer this question, making leftism a guest granted a place at the table of humanity, one it always degrades before abusing its host.
This is very funny.
Shades of "Dewey Defeats Truman"
Newsweek Recalls 125,000 Copies of ‘Madam Hillary’ Edition – Trump Edition Won’t Come Out til Next Week
It's funny, but it's also revealing the way he assumes, if they would only argue better, all their opponents would begin to agree with them. It's their best chance of achieving that result, of course, but it doesn't even occur to him that he might be wrong, and that if he argues in good faith, one of us might convince him on some issues instead. So he's got his mind creaked open just a tad so far.
It looked scripted to me when I saw it the other day, and it turns out that it is.
That explains why as a UK news junkie I had never seen him on BBC/ITN/Sky news reports
Democrats thought they would win because they would again successfully rig the vote as they did in 2012. But Trump brought out so many new live voters he overcame the rigging. Quite amazing feat.