Saturday, September 08, 2018

NeverEdwards

 Let me pose the general question of when a candidate's moral problems ought to cause a voter either to vote for someone who is further away from you on the political spectrum that that candidate, or at least withhold support from the candidate closer to you and so, by default, help the candidate further away to get elected. The issue is complicated. It has to do with the extent to which a) the candidate's moral failures, or the discovery thereof, are going to affect the performance of their duties or cause a voter backlash which will benefit your ideological opponents in the long run, and b) whether you think the candidate in the other party isn't just someone who disagrees with you on some things, but in fact embodies an ideology you consider to be simply evil. A liberal, on those grounds, might, knowing what we know, vote for Mitt Romney in an election against John Edwards , because of Edwards' willingness to violate campaign rules to escape the consequences of an illicit affair, if he thinks conservatism to be an ideology with whom he merely disagrees. If he thinks it's the embodiment of evil, he may vote for Edwards anyway, because Romney's conservatism is too evil not to vote against. NeverEdwards is silly in light of that, they might argue.

On Edwards, here. 

62 comments:

Legion of Logic said...

The purpose of voting is to get people in office who will hopefully enact preferred policies. For me to vote for someone like a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be to vote for harm to the country, as far as I'm concerned. Trump is a risk, the others are certainties.

Now, if the choice came down to, say, Donald Trump or Jim Webb, then Webb would get my vote over Trump due to temperament and Webb possessing actual principles that don't stray far left, even if he's a Democrat. He seemed to be a man of integrity.

Starhopper said...

Legion,

As a non-Clinton supporter, I still have to ask... what "harm" would she have done to the country, had she been elected? I can't think of a thing.

SteveK said...

Starhopper
If the voters didn't rein her in during the 2016 election she would have carried out great harm. It was only a matter of time. My assessment of her bottomless evil is based on what she would have done, given the chance, as demonstrated by her already abominable record. Without any hint of hyperbole, Hillary is the closest thing to Pure Evil since Stalin.

You'll likely notice that this is the exact same argument you gave for Trump being "Pure Evil like Stalin". Kinda silly, right?

Starhopper said...

"You'll likely notice that this is the exact same argument you gave for Trump being "Pure Evil like Stalin". Kinda silly, right?"

Not quite. Trump has a documented and very public record of lying, theft, corruption, nepotism, racism, xenophobia, lining his pockets at the public expense, and all-around criminal activity. Clinton has nothing comparable. E-mails? Please!

Legion of Logic said...

"As a non-Clinton supporter, I still have to ask... what "harm" would she have done to the country, had she been elected? I can't think of a thing."

Tilting the Supreme Court that far to the left would be tremendously harmful.

Beyond that, the Democrat playbook on improving race relations is ridiculously counter to the stated goal. Same with the way they treat women like helpless children. Her actual stance on gun control (including suing gun manufacturers for unlawful gun use and removal of people's guns without due process), her support for all things abortion, her affirmation for this gender identity nonsense being codified in law, her support of the unjust concept of hate crimes, her rather warhawkish mindset, her corruption and blatant contempt for laws and regulations...yeah there are problems there.

Dave Duffy said...

This is a great question Victor! I have been interested, very interested in why so many Mike Pence, Mitt Romney type supporters eventually ended up voting for Trump. It's also curious why so many who never voted, or voted for Obama (especially in the swing states), voted for Trump.

I have my own theory, based on personal experience, why this happened. I would be interested if an honest repoter would dig into the data.

As for Star's question: it's like asking what would have been different if Mitt won in 2012. My guess is, the economic rebound would have started four years earlier and Trump would have never seen the light of day.

But, as Lewis said (I think in Narnia), you never get to see what might have been.

SteveK said...

Clinton has nothing comparable

Because you want to continue the charade, I'll play along. I know you enjoy the drama.

You see, with Hillary we are in Act II of a six act play. You said before that Trump is in Act III of V. Well, Hillary is a bit more patient and methodical and in the end it will be much worse than anything you or I can imagine. She will take it to Act VI for heaven's sake. OMG! She's pure evil on a level we haven't seen since the likes of Stalin. Thank God she didn't win the presidency. I say this without the least bit of hyperbole.

Starhopper said...

Is that all ya got, Steve? You know, displaying that level of ignorance goes a long way toward explaining why Trump "won" in 2016. The well of ignorance and downright stupidity in America is truly bottomless, and Trump just dipped into whatever he needed.

Though I am glad that no one here has managed to come up with a single supposedly bad thing would have come from a Clinton presidency. (And remember, I did not support her. My prefered candidates in either party never got their party's nomination.)

SteveK said...

Is that all ya got, Steve?

I got the structure of this nonsensical "argument" from you, so yes. The details inside the structure don't really matter because it's one big steaming pile.

Starhopper said...

Crude is right, for once. One side of this debate is crazy. I know that I'm sane, so that leaves...

Hugo Pelland said...

Great question indeed Victor!
There's no simple answer imho; it depends on so many factors...

Legion of Logic said...

"Though I am glad that no one here has managed to come up with a single supposedly bad thing would have come from a Clinton presidency."

Where I grew up, we would call this a "lie" because I gave an entire list above. That you may disagree they are bad does not invalidate it at all, since no one else is remotely impressed at you saying Trump is more evil than ISIS.

Dave Duffy said...

Bob,

With a Republican congress, nothing particularly good or bad would likely have happened under Clinton. Probably nothing interesting would have happened at all (save, Supreme Court nominees). Although, we would have had a bored Bill Clinton lurking around the Whitehouse again, surrounded by young interns. A Clinton president with a Democrat congress, one can only imagine the damage.

But, people weren't interested in another four years of nothing happening. They (the majority of the voters in the swing states) wanted something different and were willing to take a gamble.

Does that answer your question?

Starhopper said...

Legion,

I was quite specific in my request for someone to name something "bad" that would have resulted from a Clinton presidency. You failed to do that. No "lying" on my part here.

Legion of Logic said...

Everything I listed was bad. Otherwise I wouldn't have listed them.

Dave Duffy said...

After reading the comments again, I'm with Legion. Secretary Clinton would have been a bad president for our country.

Starhopper said...

"Secretary Clinton would have been a bad president for our country."

I actually agree. (I told you I was not a supporter of her.) But even at her worst, she wouldn't have been one percent as bad as the unmitigated disaster Trump has proven to be. If it comes down to "lesser of two evils", then she wins hands down.

Joe Hinman said...


"But even at her worst, she wouldn't have been one percent as bad as the unmitigated disaster Trump has proven to be. If it comes down to "lesser of two evils", then she wins hands down."

true but what amuses me is how they are so afraid of her.they are still fighting her, we must keep up the bombardment or she might get in any day now if we don't put her down. It strikes me as a real need to rationalize their bad decisions to vote for the fake president.



Joe Hinman said...

on Metacrock's b;pg I am presenting concept of Schleiemracher's feeling of utter dependence as an ontological argument for God.

Here

Legion of Logic said...

"True but what amuses me is how they are so afraid of her.they are still fighting her, we must keep up the bombardment or she might get in any day now if we don't put her down. It strikes me as a real need to rationalize their bad decisions to vote for the fake president"

That would be true if there was a single person here fighting her. Starhopper asked what would be so bad about Hillary in response to a hypothetical I used, a hypothetical based on recent historical events. That's not "fighting" anything, though I will happily admit I fear progressives in power.

Oh, and Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. Peoples insistence on calling him a fake president when he is not is no better than the birthers insisting Obama was a fake president. You like being a birther?

Starhopper said...

"Peoples insistence on calling him a fake president when he is not is no better than the birthers insisting Obama was a fake president."

When people call Trump a "fake president", they are not challenging the legitimacy of his election, they are making fun of his calling the media "fake news".

Legion of Logic said...

"When people call Trump a "fake president", they are not challenging the legitimacy of his election, they are making fun of his calling the media "fake news"."

Actually, countless progressives do and have done exactly that - they challenge the legitimacy of his election. As an example, two seconds into a Google search: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/14/trumps-presidency-is-illegitimate/

In context of Joe's post, there is no method for distinguishing those employing satire of "fake news" to those being serious, since it uses the exact same language. What's a poor conservative to think?

SteveK said...

Starhopper asks about Hillary, Joe blames conservatives for obsessing over her. SMH

Joe Hinman said...

Oh, and Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. Peoples insistence on calling him a fake president when he is not is no better than the birthers insisting Obama was a fake president. You like being a birther?

New York Items is one of the most highly respected news agencies in the world Trump;s instance on calling it failed and fake when it is not is no better than the birthers insisting Obama was a fake president. You like being a birther?

I don't believe Trump is the duly elected president any more than Duarte was the duly elected president of El Salvador after his death swards terrorized the compesinos into not voting. Do you like being the leader of the white hand?

they did have voter intimidation squads on the streets in ft worth it was on the regular news, Black turn in Florida and N Ciorioia was very uncharacteristically low.

The trick Comey pulled with the email in the last week and other such irregularities should be enough to investigate but It's all just sweept into history. Anyone can steel an election if they just get to sit in the seat for a couple of days.


Besides, he is not the chose of the majority of Americans, that is a fact,not opinion it does not need proving.

Legion of Logic said...

See, Starhopper?

SteveK said...

That's high-level CRaZy, right there. TDS is very real.

Joe Hinman said...

Actually, countless progressives do and have done exactly that - they challenge the legitimacy of his election. As an example, two seconds into a Google search: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/14/trumps-presidency-is-illegitimate/


yes I do I thin are irresponsible sticking your head in the ground and refusing to think,
that's just nutty crazy jut irrational ,flying apart anyone who would question my truth regime is insane,

Joe Hinman said...

In context of Joe's post, there is no method for distinguishing those employing satire of "fake news" to those being serious, since it uses the exact same language. What's a poor conservative to think?

there are two truths going there, i do seriously question his legitimacy but I would call him fake satirically anyway he deserves it,

Starhopper said...

"Starhopper asks about Hillary, Joe blames conservatives for obsessing over her.

I did not bring up Clinton, Steve. Legion did, in the very first posting on this thread. I was merely asking him to clarify what he meant when he wrote, "For me to vote for someone like a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be to vote for harm to the country, as far as I'm concerned."

So, no obsessing on my part.

What does SMH stand for?

Hugo Pelland said...

Shaking My Head
He was expressing disbelief, not realizing he's the one who didn't read the order correctly... smh

Legion of Logic said...

"yes I do I thin are irresponsible sticking your head in the ground and refusing to think"

I treat Trump like I treat anyone else - I give him credit for what his administration does, both good and bad, and in Trump's case I recognize his amoral lack of actual principles, which is the reason that even Hillary wasn't enough to make me vote against her.

I'm pretty sure my lack of emotional investment toward Trump, either way, gives me a clarity that the vast majority of progressives and die-hard Trump supporters utterly lack. If that's refusing to think, then I hope I never think again.

SteveK said...

Oops! SMH

Joe Hinman said...

Sorry LL I did not mean you personally. The editorial you.

Joe Hinman said...

LL:For me to vote for someone like a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be to vote for harm to the country, as far as I'm concerned. Trump is a risk, the others are certainties.

such neutrality such penetrating insight,

I am still waiting for a conservative to show me one thing either of them did that was bad,

Starhopper said...

"I am still waiting for a conservative to show me one thing either of them did that was bad."

Oh, Joe, Joe, Joe. I may not be a conservative (although I used to be one, before Reagan), but even I can think of several things Obama did that were "bad". Here is just a sampling:

- Pushed for same sex marriage, and celebrated it when it was legalized
- Conducted unrestricted drone warfare in the Middle East
- Failed to even try to pressure the Senate to confirm Garland
- Once wore a brown suit to a state function

I can't come up with a similar list for Clinton, although I could easily make one of the "stupid" (not "bad") things she did.

Legion of Logic said...

"such neutrality such penetrating insight"

I specifically said Trump, not all things. Absolutely I favor conservatives over progressives, for the express reason that I believe, for the most part, that conservative solutions are vastly superior to progressive ones. But as far as Trump goes, progressives are unable to recognize good things and die-hard supporters are unable to recognize bad.

But here is where it gets telling:

"I am still waiting for a conservative to show me one thing either of them did that was bad"

If you don't think Obama or Hillary did anything bad, at all, ever (lowest hanging fruit - telling outright lies), then you probably aren't qualified to hold a discussion about them, so I'm going to chalk that up to hyperbole. Christ is perfect, they are not Christ. Obviously lying to our faces is bad, obviously both Obama and Hillary did it, and obviously you agree that lying to our faces is bad, so obviously you agree that Obama and Hillary did bad things. We can certainly go much more unethical than lying, but that's the simplest way to show that yes, conservatives have shown they did bad things.

Yes, I am a conservative. That means that someone doing progressive things, which are often opposed to conservative things, is likely doing bad things in my book. Here's a bit larger list, off the top of my head, with "bad" ranging from harmful to outright immoral. Advocating for abortion is bad. Claiming that men and women are societal constructs instead of the natural way God made things is bad. Wanting to take others' means of self-defense away while surrounded by armed bodyguards is bad. Sending representatives to the funeral of violent criminals and thereby stoking racial tension is bad. Title IX, which often robs male college students of due process for sexual assault accusations, is bad. Arming criminals who then use those weapons to kill Americans is bad. Violating constitutional rules to appoint officials and getting smacked down 9-0 by the Supreme Court is bad. Breaking email rules that you hold others to is bad. And, to reiterate, lying is bad.

And again, that's just off the top of my head. I could find far, far more with research. All those are bad things. Obama was far from an upright politician. Completely out of sight of that goal, in fact.

While I think progressive policies are bad, I don't take it quite to the extreme that progressives themselves do, in which everything we do is either due to stupidity, bigotry, or greed, but at best I think they are misguided, even if well-intentioned. Sure there are good people who are progressives, but I would say they are good in spite of being progressives in a lot of cases.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,

It's great that you were willing to give a list of the harm the Democrats could do, or what Hillary could have done specifically. I had already started to reply to that first list but never got to posting it. Now, you doubled down with another list, and the main issue I had with your first list was made obvious with this one. It's such a common theme among Conservatives, or what I would call the Christian-Right Conservatives to be more specific, as it's not so much about politics in this case.

The issue is that there is no distinction between what is considered "bad", subjectively, and what causes "harm", objectively, and whether issues fall in both, one, or neither.

In other words, it's a clash between the Conservatives mindset that seem to want some sort of "good" society versus Liberals who want a "free" society. Now, on to some example to explain what I mean...

"Tilting the Supreme Court that far to the left would be tremendously harmful."
- Harm to whom, how? Which court cases would be examples of harm caused by Liberal judges?

"Democrat playbook on improving race relations is ridiculously counter to the stated goal."
- Again, who's getting harmed? I am not saying they are doing it perfectly, not at all, but having a "bad" approach does not equal "harming" people.

"Same with the way they treat women like helpless children"
- Absurd. They want women in power. Pushing it too much sometimes... again, who's being harmed, and how? And again, it doesn't mean they always do the right thing...

"Her actual stance on gun control (including suing gun manufacturers for unlawful gun use and removal of people's guns without due process)"
- Again, who's getting harmed? Gun manufacturers? Someone losing a gun? Does that even happen that much to be relevant compared to people dying of gun-related accidents? What is the evidence that strong gun laws mean more people getting harmed? The latter could be proven with stats, but it never happens. It's again just a notion of what's "bad" because of the subjective view that "bad people have guns so I want to be able to protect myself with guns". It's purely emotional, personal, and completely avoids looking at the big picture and how we can reduce harm, overall.

"her support for all things abortion"
- Complicated one but pro-life Conservatives always oversimplify... That's again obviously a moral judgement more than a notion of harm. Objectively, we know that societies with proper access to reproductive measures, including abortions, do better on so many fronts. It causes tremendous harm to women when abortion is outlawed or difficult to get, including the real danger of dying from an illegal abortion, a reality that cannot be ignored. But the pro-life position doesn’t care about any of this; it places the hypothetical harm done to an embryo above the measurable effects on society and women in general.

Hugo Pelland said...

"her affirmation for this gender identity nonsense being codified in law"
- This one is the worst! It's just about atypical people demanding to be respected, demanding to not be harmed for just being the way they are. That's what this one is about. Yet another example of harm? Harm to whom!? Who feels hurt that some people prefer to be called by a certain pronoun? Ya, there are some stupid rules passed in some places (see Jordan Peterson and bill C-16 in Canda), but come on, how on Earth is that causing HARM to anyone?

You put that on a list of potential bad things from an hypothetical Clinton government while we actually have, today, a POTUS that caused net neutrality to be revoked, calls the media the enemy of the people, has worked with dozens of people who pleaded guilty to various criminal charges, has bowed down to autocrats like Putin, a leader who kills his opponents... Oh but Hillary might have forced people to call these transgender folks by a pronoun I don't like.

Finally, let me add 1 comparison that I think is very telling:
- Clinton testified for hours in public regarding various issues over the years
- Trump won't even show his tax returns.
Yet, Trumpists continue to pretend that she was the obviously corrupt one, the one hiding crimes, the one fighting in the shadows, or whatever crap of the day they want to dig up. She had been one of the most publicly scrutinized figure in decades. During these years, Trump was a super wealthy businessman able to do whatever the heck he wants without much scrutiny. The double standard is screaming. We have a POTUS who literally lies, every day, about small details to big factual claims, (this morning, his lie was about the GDP growth being higher than unemployement, a first in 100 years, but it's more like just 10 and has been very common actually) yet Hillary Clinton is still the one being accused, 2 years later still, of being a liar and having contempt for laws and regulations. This is absurd beyond words.

All that being said, sure, kudos to you Legion for pointing out the obvious, about any groups of people:
"While I think progressive policies are bad, I don't take it quite to the extreme that progressives themselves do, in which everything we do is either due to stupidity, bigotry, or greed, but at best I think they are misguided, even if well-intentioned. Sure there are good people who are progressives, but I would say they are good in spite of being progressives in a lot of cases."
Yes, great, great, how nice of you; we can say the same the other way around of course. It doesn't make your arguments better unfortunately... and look at who's on your side: people who scream that most of the media is all biased and fake, people that yell racists epithets at people who look different, bros that think women have it too easy in life, heartless business folks who couldn't care less about the average guy, anti-intellectual people who think education is nothing but brain washing, etc... There are bad people on any side, but so many bad groups of people are pro-Trump.

Starhopper said...

I think one of the things that pisses me off the most about Trump is that, prior to his election, I had successfully separated myself from all politics. And let me tell you, it was a wonderful feeling. Yes, I didn't support anyone who was running in 2016, and for the most part I didn't care! My mind and energies were on higher things.

But then... Well, afterwards, I imagine that my feelings must have been like those of (right minded) people living in Italy after Mussolini took over, or someone in Chile after Pinochet's coup. I not only could not remain on the sidelines, I truly believe it would have been sinful to do so. Evil must be resisted, if only to provide a space for good to grow. And Trump was basically sowing salt into our nation's furrows. The next generation can expect but a harvest of weeds from these dreadful times, and it is our duty to ameliorate their sufferings.

I have never lived through such a stark divide between Good and Evil in my lifetime. Who cares whether Eisenhower or Stevenson won in 1952? What difference would it have made if Humphrey or Nixon was president in 1969? Do you really think it mattered that Clinton, rather than Dole, won in 1996? Of course not! But this is truly different (sometimes things really are different). The very fate of "Government of, by, and for the People" hangs in the balance. Support Trump, and you support the destruction of the American Experiment. Oppose him, and you side with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR.

Legion of Logic said...

"The issue is that there is no distinction between what is considered "bad", subjectively, and what causes "harm", objectively, and whether issues fall in both, one, or neither."

Get the clarification from those saying no one has listed anything bad that Hillary would have done or that Obama did. I'll operate under those definitions.

Legion of Logic said...

"I have never lived through such a stark divide between Good and Evil in my lifetime."

This topic has risen in multiple threads and kind of gone all over the place, and I've yet to grasp the core of your position. Or rather, the core of what makes you take this position.

So, pretend there was someone on here that said "no one has listed anything Trump has done that's evil". What would your response be? To show what Trump has done that, as you referenced with other elections, is fundamentally no longer a choice between political visions as in past elections, but a choice between Good and Evil?

Starhopper said...

Well, since I have already listed things that Obama has done which are objectively "bad", I guess that you'll be operating under definitions as laid down by Joe Hinman.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Legion, to answer your comment
'Get the clarification from those saying no one has listed anything bad that Hillary would have done or that Obama did. I'll operate under those definitions.'
Here's how it looked like...

Legion: For me to vote for someone like a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be to vote for harm to the country
Starhopper: what "harm" would she have done to the country, had she been elected?
Legion: [says he would list harmful things; lists things he finds bad]
Joe: Nobody listed anything bad that was done, or could have been done by Clinton/Obama
Legion: [list things he finds bad; mostly repetition from above]

So, my point is that you list a lot of things you find bad and I do agree with some details here and there. But you list absolutely nothing that shows potential nor actual harm. It has nothing to do with what others told you. It's all about what you presented. But I guess it's much easier to just list things, call them 'bad' and then move on... no nuance, no thinking, no support. Maybe you just don't feel like it, that's fine, it does take time.

bmiller said...

I agree with Crude.

This has turned into a liberal political whine-fest full of fallacies, predominately ad hominem.

Hugo Pelland said...

What a pointless comment bmiller; ironic when complaining whining. It's just a blog, read what you want to read, ignore what you don't feel like reading. Move on...

SteveK said...

It's now pointless to complain about logical fallacies on a Christian blog? Just read it and move on. Wow.

Hugo Pelland said...

SteveK, just like you did now, bmiller didn't point to anything specifically. It's just whining. Quote a line, explain what's wrong, and you'll have a point. But you just whine like he did.

Anyway, my point was that it's useless to complain about the blog turning into 'X', whatever it is. Reply with content, or don't. No big deal either way of course.

Joe Hinman said...

Oh, Joe, Joe, Joe. I may not be a conservative (although I used to be one, before Reagan), but even I can think of several things Obama did that were "bad". Here is just a sampling:

- Pushed for same sex marriage, and celebrated it when it was legalized
- Conducted unrestricted drone warfare in the Middle East
- Failed to even try to pressure the Senate to confirm Garland
- Once wore a brown suit to a state function

I can't come up with a similar list for Clinton, although I could easily make one of the "stupid" (not "bad") things she did.

YOu left oiut Pearl Harebor

Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said...
I agree with Crude.

This has turned into a liberal political whine-fest full of fallacies, predominately ad hominem.

It has not! You are all so very unfair, but hey Im just waiting for the Doc. Some of us are still doing apologetic you know,I fight I am fightig "I am skeptical" every day because he wont go away. where are you? come to Metacrock's blog come the cadre bog

bmiller said...

Hugo,

Stop whining about my comments.

You put that on a list of potential bad things from an hypothetical Clinton government while we actually have, today,
1) a POTUS that caused net neutrality to be revoked,
2) calls the media the enemy of the people,
3) has worked with dozens of people who pleaded guilty to various criminal charges,
4) has bowed down to autocrats like Putin, a leader who kills his opponents...


a) Stopping federal Net neutrality is bad, how? Begging the question.
b) Complaining about bad media coverage is bad how? Also if that's disqualifying Clinton and Obama are disqualified also
c) Guilt by association is a fallacy. But again Clinton too.
d) Baseless assertion

Like I said. Loaded with fallacies.



Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller,

I will keep pointing out how useless your comments are, when it's accurate. It seems to have triggered you to write something of substance instead of just whining so that's definitely positive. The last one was attempting to make some points so I think it was valuable. You did not spot any fallacies though so that doesn't make sense. Regarding the content:

1) Do you think your electricity provider should be able to charge you more when using a Samsung fridge because they have a deal with GE? If no, then you agree Net Neutrality is good. More generally, the principle is that the Internet providers should give customers access to the Internet, period, not to only some part of the internet and/or give different speed to different parts of the internet.

2) There is a giant leap from complaining about media coverage to calling the media the enemy of the people. Trump explicitly said the latter, repeated it, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders would not deny it after multiple questions. To make things worst, these comments are directed at a variety of news outlet, with a broad brush; it's not some sophisticated critiques of specific issues.

3) Of course anybody can be found to have worked with people who pleading guilty of criminal offences. That's not the point. We're talking about close associates, campaign managers, not distant one-off individuals. And it's not just guilt by association; it's about picking these people and giving them instructions as to what should or should not be done, like paying someone to keep their mouth shut. There is simply no example that came out regarding Clinton that were that bad. That's not a partisan thing; Republicans acknowledge that! The difference is huge.

4) Baseless assertion!? Have you not watched Trump's press conference with Putin? Have you not read his tweets?
Recently: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit/index.html
Before: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/
If Trump was just about making sure the USA remains strong but favor open dialogue with Russia, maybe that would be fine, because I like the parts where Trump says we should be peaceful, but that is way way beyond that. He is literally praising Putin, as if the man was praise-worthy. Do you need that to be justified too? Or perhaps you just like Putin because he's an homophobic opposition-killing autocrat and that's 3 great things to be known for?

bmiller said...

Hugo,

You begged the question of NN by assuming it was "bad" against those who don't without argument. Strike 1.

You have merely asserted that talking harshly of the media is "bad". Once again fallacious. Strike 2.

Did Trump commit a crime? Has he been charged with something? Neither has Hillary yet. You're welcome to your opinion, but that is not an argument for either's criminality. Strike 3.

Your hysteria that Trump did not insult Putin publicly during a news conference is noted. I haven't seen any of the last several presidents punch him at news conferences either. Once again you're welcome to your opinion but don't look for me to vote for you to be president if that's what you think a president should do. And once again fallacious since you are assuming your opinion against those who hold a different opinion. Strike 4

Oh and I don't get "triggered". That's what liberals have been since Hillary lost.

Dave Duffy said...

I did vote for Trump. In California, my vote meant nothing.

As I try to keep track of all the laws the Democratic Party keeps passing in my formerly great state of California (if any of you can keep track of all the new laws, can you let me know all the ways I am breaking the law), I don't mind a guy like Trump making these busy bodies hysterical.

bmiller said...

if any of you can keep track of all the new laws, can you let me know all the ways I am breaking the law

No need now Dave. Now that you've told them who you voted for, they will let you know :-)

Dave Duffy said...

Yep Miller, it's best we have a secret vote and probably best to keep that vote to yourself. I don't blame people for keeping their thoughts under a false identity. However, Victor seems a reasonable man and the comments seem to be a normal spread of American voters.

Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller,

1) NN is bad to whoever looks into it. It's not an assumption. I was merely educating you on the topic as you either didn't know, or knew so little that you drank the cool-aid of lobbyists on Ajit Pai's side. I presented you a clear, simple explanations as to why NN is important to fight for. You presented nothing.

2) You said: "You have merely asserted that talking harshly of the media is "bad"." but that's not what I said. The issue is with specific comments about the media being the 'enemy of the people'. Go re-read the text above so you can process the text again. You're the one who was asking why complaining about the media is bad, but again, this was not the point.

Let me explain this more clearly to you as you seem to be struggling with what is a fallacy or not. You asked me why I think 'A is bad'. I told you, no, 'B is bad'. You stated that my assertion that 'A is bad' is fallacious. That's the definition of a strawman. You see, you need to address what I am actually saying if you want to engage in critical thinking.

3) I am not yet 100% sure that Trump committed any specific crime, no. I did hear some examples of what could be prosecuted as obstruction of justice and I believe that paying someone to obtain their silence in exchange may be illegal. I am not sure.

Regarding Hillary, I am not aware of anything even close to being a crime. I heard lots of hearsay and even some conspiracy theories of her causing the death of someone or running sex rings. But nothing direct like incriminating quotes.

4) You misread my tone and reaction. There is no hysteria on my part at all. It's amazing that someone could be so blinded that they don't see Trump and Putin for what they are. It's truly astonishing that there is so much ignorance and irrational thinking in this country sometimes. But I need to remind myself that it's just how a lot of average folks work. They don't have time nor the capacity to really dig deeper.

5) Trigger meant only that it caused you to do something. I pointed out that you wrote a useless comment, that caused you to write a non-useless comment. I will try to use simpler words that you can process more easily when addressing you. It's too bad that the word 'trigger' has been co-opted like that by right-wing media. I will try to use language that fits your silo of information better.

Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said...

bmiller said

You have merely asserted that talking harshly of the media is "bad". Once again fallacious. Strike 2.

talking harshly?? enemy of the people is not just talking harshly,his reason for saying that so he can silence those who blow the whistle on his treason..

Did Trump commit a crime?

very probably

Has he been charged with something? Neither has Hillary yet. You're welcome to your opinion, but that is not an argument for either's criminality. Strike 3.

treason i a crime, stealing elections is a crime suppressing votes is a crime.

Your hysteria that Trump did not insult Putin publicly during a news conference is noted. I haven't seen any of the last several presidents punch him at news conferences either. Once again you're welcome to your opinion but don't look for me to vote for you to be president if that's what you think a president should do. And once again fallacious since you are assuming your opinion against those who hold a different opinion. Strike 4

Index to your mentality, he just almost got on his knees and swore Oath of Fealty

Joe Hinman said...

1) NN is bad to whoever looks into it. It's not an assumption. I was merely educating you on the topic as you either didn't know, or knew so little that you drank the cool-aid of lobbyists on Ajit Pai's side. I presented you a clear, simple explanations as to why NN is important to fight for. You presented nothing.

I have to admit I really don't understand that, "net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." sounds good to me what's wrong with that?

bmiller said...

Hugo,

You've demonstrated to my satisfaction once again that you cannot distinguish facts from opinions.

I can't help you with that.

Have a nice day. Goodbye.

Joe Hinman said...

Hugo I am for NN, clearly right, But the way you worded it misled me until I found the mealier post.

BMiller Hugo clearly clearly got the better of you.

Hugo Pelland said...

Joe,
Correct, there was 1 word missing regarding NN... "Repealing" it was wrong for all of us. No consequences yet afaik, thankfully.

Bmiller said "you cannot distinguish facts from opinions.". But I can. I would glady explain to you which of the points above were facts and which ones were my opinions. I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you.