Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
Doesn't this sound like you are admitting to practicing criminal law as you say none of what is talked about is Constitutional.
No, criminal law is an entirely different subject.
You are practicing law as you are publicly speaking of criminal laws and making claims of greivance as criminal conduct.
No, we're not. We're talking about evidence of wrongdoing, and whether the evidence supports the claims. That's about logic, not criminal law.
And even if the conversation about the president's actions was had in a legal context, this still would not qualify as "practicing law". To practice law, by definition, requires one to do so within the judicial system. This is not the judicial system, it's a debate site.
I am talking about the Oath of office of President in Article II which describes how a man elected must show as his ability to serve, protect, and defend United States Constitution to be a President of this office
None of us were talking about that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I had assumed you were caught up with what the GOP charges were, but I can see that the liberal media has not done its job... again...
I wasn't interested in the GOP's allegations, I've heard many different people within the GOP present their own case. I was asking for the evidence you claim exists that convinces you Biden was running or involved in a criminal scheme.
Though I feel this is a disingenuous retort from you, tbh.
It wasn't a retort. I asked you to briefly summarize your case. You responded with multiple links I could have easily pulled up myself.
I've been through this with many people on this site many times. I am more than willing to read through your documents and watch your videos, all 30 minutes if it. But not when you are unwilling to write out your own thoughts. Links are useful for supporting your argument, not to make it for you. I too have Google, if all I wanted to do was watch YouTube videos or sift through GOP documents I could have done that on my own.
Then a horrible economist you would make. An economy is not just a GDP number and unemployment statistic.
I never suggested otherwise, in fact that is my point. The economy is an incredibly complex subject, so going through each indicator one by one and going back and forth on them is a months long endeavor with almost zero chance of making any progress. I'm just not interested in that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That may be true, but the public perception of trusting Fauci/Birx at the time was a passive greenlight for all of their recommendations which the States then based their policies on.
The states trusted Fauci and Birx because they were the country's leading experts on the subject matter and their views were representative on the global consensus of the issues. Donald Trump's endorsement had little to do with the states accepting what they had to say, although it certainly played into the states playing politics with it like Florida.
Especially of note was the claim that taking the Pharma vaccine would stop/slow the spread when we now know it never did anything of the sort.
The vaccines had an amazingly high effective rate at preventing COVID when they were first distributed. Once the virus mutated that changed. Regardless, they continue to be highly effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths, which is really the point.
Again, the states that cared about science knew this not because of Trump but because of science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
Thank you both for taking the time out of your busy day to coach us the American voters on the practice law by self-representation outside a court of law. Not how to evaluate a man's United State Constitutional ability by oath to be President of the United States of America. Do you even know what you both are doing?
What on earth are you talking about?
Who is "us the American voters"? Last I checked I was an American voter.
The only people we are "coaching" Americans are the handful of members here on this site reading this thread. That's a far cry from the populace at large.
We're not talking about the practice of law, we're talking about evidence and if there is any sufficient to justify the claims.
None of what we're talking about has anything to with the constitutionality of Trump being president.
Not a single thing you said made sense or applies to our discission.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I can tell you looked at absolutely ZERO of what I linked to.
You linked to a 30 minute video without even hinting at what I was supposed to be looking for. No, I'm not sitting through that. If the case is so simple you should be able to put together a few sentences explaining it. Then, perhaps I'll be interested in the video.
Please summarize the case against him.Read it here:
These are the allegations. I'm asking for the case.
Obama inherited a trash economy. Trump inherited a nearly-fully-employed one. It's easy to add 7 million jobs when tens of millions are out of work... It's much more of an accomplishment to add 6 million jobs to a nearly fully-employed economy.
So Obama left with a nearly fully employed economy. Ok, that's refreshing to hear from someone on the right.
That still doesn't change the fact that the pace of job creation slowed down when Trump took office. It's not a significant slow down at all, and I don't blame Trump for any of that. I seem to agree with you that it was a natural product of a nearly fully employed economy. The point is that you and every other Trump defender gives Trump credit for the job market, despite also admitting that we were doing just fine before he took over and nothing significantly changed.
But either way, you conveniently ignored the 10 other things I listed about the economy
Because I'm not interested in debating point by point every economic indicator you can think of, so I just picked the first. Besides, I put just as much thought and effort into refuting your first point as you did rambling off your list that you probably just googled.
If you think there's one metric that demonstrates Trump's economic greatness I'll comment on it, otherwise I just stick to what I've already said, Trump didn't do anything special to be able to take credit for the position we were in. That was a continuation of the path we were already on and there's no evidence things would have been significantly worse under anyone else. Trump was merely the benefactor of the strong position he inherited.
That's not to say he wasn't good on the economy, but that requires looking at his actions and decisions, not merely by looking at our positioning before COVID. And if all you're going to do is tout our position during his tenure, then you have to include COVID or you're just cherry picking.
Trump very likely had the greatest economy of America's existence before he fucked it up with lockdowns.
But he didn't. The lockdowns were implemented by the states over Trump's objections.
Another example of how presidents get way too much of the credit and the blame for the economy under their watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
We have more evidence that Biden is corrupt than we do that Trump is married to Malania.
Having leaked phone calls is not evidence. It's what's on those calls that matter. Same for the emails, same for everything else.
If you ask me for evidence of Trump's suspicious ties to Russia I to could provide a trove of information, the difference is I wouldn't need you to sift through hours of audio and pages upon pages of documents just to figure out what the argument is.
Please summarize the case against him. What relatively few data points can establish that there is anything here worth looking at?
So in the first 3 years of Trump's presidency over 6 million new jobs were created, meanwhile in the 3 years before that there were over 7 million jobs created, so the pace of jobs created under Trump literally slowed down.
This is what I'm talking about. All Trump did was took the economy he inherited and didn't screw it up. Giving him credit for that is like handing Trump the Burj Khalifa, putting a sphire on top of it and then bragging about how he built the tallest tower anyone has ever seen.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When will the country grow tired of these Trumper frauds?
They don't care. Hypocrisy is irrelevant on the right. Only when the left is deemed hypocritical, regardless of whether it's actual hypocrisy, does it matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
actually evidence sufficient to warrant an investigation.Not according to Horowitz and Mueller, but whatevs.
Mueller, at most, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant criminal prosecution. That is a totally different thing.
In the case of Biden, we have leaked phone calls, financial records, and witness testimony.
You don't have any of this. The most damning witness is a fugitive because he was working as a foreign spy, and the last witness the right made such a big deal about exculpated Biden. Even the republican "expert" witnesses said there's nothing there.
So why wouldn't I want to elect the guy who did all that into office again?
Well, two reasons.
First is because he didn't "do" any of that. At least not the economic stuff, let's set aside foreign policy for a moment cause that's a whole other conversation. All you did was lost stuff that happened while Trump was president, that doesn't mean he was the cause of it. Looking at any off the major economic indicators, nothing drastically got better under Trump, all that happened was we continued the same trajectory we were on from the keeps seven years under Obama.
Second, there's also the fact that he tried to end US democracy. I think that's a valid reason on its own.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
No. I am saying we can't know whether more people truly are employed or not based on BLS statistics.Sure, there were more who were TEMPORARILY unemployed. But permanently unemployed? Maybe for a bit before they found new jobs.
What does any of this have to do with the conversation we were having about tax revenues?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
the investigation is still ongoing so just let it finish and only then we can tell who was wrong.
We already know who is wrong - those who started an investigation with no evidence, all for the propose of seeing if they could dig up something they can use against their political opponent and if not, just use the investigation itself to smear him.
This is exactly what the right spent the prior 4 years complaining about (political witch hunt), except before there was actually evidence sufficient to warrant an investigation.
What behavior exactly? Please be specific.I refer to the dubious reputation of old Joe who was a politician all his life.
So nothing. Got it.
But as I already said it, Biden needs to go because everyone wants this, even the democrats.
Everyone will have their chance to vote him out. We'll see how that goes.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
From what I know, the police in the States are really brutal and the law seemingly allows them to be so. That's why I ask if it's possible to shoot a looter when is caught red handed considering that most of them are unarmed and according to human rights you can't shoot an unarmed person. Maybe it's possible given that americans don't give a shit to human rights (you still have death penalty), but on the other hand maybe it's not because most of the looters are black and the victimism can arise. That seems to be a dilemma.
The law of course doesn't allow police officers to shoot looters, all alleged criminals are legally entitled to due process. The problem in our laws is that police officers are allowed to shoot a perpetrator if they "fear for their life", but there seems to be nothing governing such criteria so they can make up any excuse they want and it doesn't really matter of their fear was reasonable. That's what needs to change.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Will never happen. Speaker of the house is not glamorous, it's a shit job that while certainly meaningful when it comes to making a difference in people's lives, requires a lot of actual, hard, methodical work. Trump has absolutely no interest in that.
Moreover, it's one of those jobs that only political junkies appreciate. It's not a stepping stone to higher office, so it would only harm Trump's chances which defeats his entire purpose in life right now: getting elected so he can keep himself or of jail.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Which means that the definition widenedNot necessarily. The definitions for the other categories changed too.
The point is that far, far fewer people were regularly employed throughout 2020 than in 2021. Are you seriously arguing against this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Hunter is not only inmoral but also a criminal so investigating his father is a logical thing to do because sooner or later an evidence can come up as a result of it.
Evidence can always come up sooner or later, that's not how we determine whether to investigate someone. We investigate when we have evidence sufficient to justify diverting public resources towards said investigation. We do not have that. "Because Hunter is a criminal" does not qualify.
Moreover, what exactly was Hunter charged with? Lying on a gun application and failure to pay taxes... Really? If this is your bar for what counts as a criminal I'm really curious to know your thoughts on Trump.
There is no certainty of the crime, that is true, but there are not doubts either about Joe's behavior.
What behavior exactly? Please be specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right. Speaking deals and books which are legal forms of political bribery, and have been for a very long time.
Right. So first he was corrupt because of Ukraine, now that that was debunked by your own source he's corrupt because of speaking deals and books, something nearly every turner office holder benefits from.
Whatever you can latch onto, that's what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So Biden owning 4 multi-million dollar houses on the salary of a politician is Ukraine's fault?
No. Read your own source:
"According to a 2019 Forbes estimate, Biden and his wife Jill are worth $9 million, much of that accrued from speaking fees and book deals that came pouring in after his vice presidency."
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
There's a major difference between "actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks" and "looking for a job."One implies actually applying to places and getting interviews. The other one is just "looking."
Which means that the definition widened in 2021, so UI claims would rise as a result even with no change in the actual number of people looking for work. Yet UI claims fell dramatically in 2021 vs 2020, demonstrating my point even further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I've got to make it clear that I said the corruption around him
There is certainly some shady stuff that went on in his family, but that's not corruption. Corruption is when a person in a position of trust uses their position for their own personal gain. Neither Hunter nor anyone else in the Biden family were ever in such a position.
What his family members did was take advantage of corrupt systems such as those in Ukraine to capitalize. While that's certainly bothersome, the problem is not them, they're just doing what most people would do in their place. The problem is the systems they took advantage of which there were people entrusted to fix and didn't.
So, we can't be too naive to think Joe is not involved. He is. The fact that there is no evidence shouldn't be an excuse to absolve him because there are many clues.
Evidence is what you need to substantiate your claims. If you don't have it then you do not have justification to assert Biden's involvement.
What you seem to be alluding to are highly circumstantial examples that fail under any level of scrutiny and even if left unquestioned do not pass the Occam's razor test. All of this Biden crime family stuff is pure propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
the shameless corruption around him
Would love to focus on the point of this thread but that's difficult when the premise is based off of proven lies, this being the prime example.
I'd love to know more about this shameless corruption you speak of. The republicans have been investigating this for years and every hearing they hold on it proves to be an utter embarrassment. Their own members alleging Biden's corruption admit they don't have any evidence against him, so what do you know that they don't?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
the lockdowns post 2020 were nothing compared to what they were when COVID first hit.That isn't true at all.
Yes it is true, that's an objective fact. Google unemployment claims in 2020 vs 2021, notice the stark difference.
As if you didn't live through this, it's only been 3 years...
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People will blame the closest thing. The fact that the Euro economy is in shambles because they based the value of their currency on the inflated global US dollar is their own failure. Europeans will change what they can while Americans do the same.
So global inflation is all because of the loss of value of the US dollar, which occurred while Biden was in office therefore Biden is responsible for global inflation. Do I have that right?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
As was I. They continued clear into 2022 in the U.S. in most states, iirc. At least, at minimum, they continued through 2023 in some states.
You know full well the lockdowns post 2020 were nothing compared to what they were when COVID first hit.
This is a silly attempt to save face, just accept that your original argument about tax cuts increasing revenue is bogus.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Voters do. If their pay goes up and the prices go up faster, they won't call it a good thing.
One would also think that voters would have enough intelligence and awareness to look around and recognize that this phenomenon is happening all over the world as a result from a global disruption of the supply chain.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I was talking about the lockdowns that resulted from COVID, not the virus itself. That should have been obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All knowing and all powerful does not mean that you will use that power and knowledge to change the decision making of humans. He lets humans decide for themselves, and by not interfering with them, that is giving us free will.
All knowing, all powerful, and the creator of this universe... Is logically contradictory.
If he's all powerful then he has the ability to choose whatever outcome he desires.
If he's all knowing then it's not possible for him to have created anything without knowing what the outcome would be.
If he created this universe, where you are here right now reading my words, then being all knowing and all powerful, he already knew this would be the outcome and chose this version over a version where you skipped over this post.
So according to the laws of logic, he made this choice for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If we are just a product of a cosmic burb, that just happened to create our very intelligent and complex minds, that would mean that we serve no purpose, we have no meaning, we are meaningless, and we don't have a free will.
Earlier when asked to define free will you provided the following:
"the ability to act at one's own discretion."
There is nothing about this definition that ceases to be the case if it turns out that our intelligent minds were created by "cosmic burb". "Ability", "discretion", "act"... Each of these qualifiers are observed traits in humans as well as other intelligent species, so according to your definition and the English language, we absolutely do have free will absent any consideration of a god.
The rest of your argument is non-sequitor. Meaning and purpose have nothing to do with the topic of free will. Inserting it in is nothing more than an appeal to emotion, an attempt to justify rejecting any absence of god's role because the prospect is one you don't like. Maybe we don't have meaning or purpose. So what? Not liking this idea has no impact on the truth of the statement.
But it's more than that, the very idea you are appealing to (a lack of meaning and/or purpose) is itself fallacious. Meaning and purpose comes from within. My life has meaning and purpose because I give it so, which stems from that which I value. If you don't value this life absent a god telling you to then the only thing I can recommend is a good therapist.
So what you are actually saying when you argue that we have no meaning or purpose is that we have no externally imposed meaning or purpose. Which, naturally, requires a god. So as I pointed out before, your argument is just a huge question begging fallacy. The only way any of what you're saying works is if we begin with the acceptance of a god as true and work from there, yet a god is the very thing you are convinced your argument proves. If we have to accept a God before the argument can make sense, it doesn't.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
If it was due to covid then explain how we did it in 2021 🤣
COVID hit in 2020
Additionally, more money to the federal government doesn't equate the soundness of an economy.
I don’t recall arguing that it did
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
lowering the taxes just increases budget deficit.Trump actually had the highest revenue from taxes of any previous President and it was accomplished by lowering taxes:
Every President has had the highest revenue of any previous president because revenue always goes up.
FY 2021 $4.05 trillion
FY 2020 $3.42 trillion
FY 2019 $3.46 trillion
FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 $3.25 trillion
FY 2014 $3.02 trillion
FY 2013 $2.78 trillion
FY 2012 $2.45 trillion
FY 2011 $2.30 trillion
FY 2010 $2.16 trillion
Over the past 30 years we’ve only failed to increase revenue year over year 5 times due to COVID, the Great Recession, and the other three times under Bush post 9/11 and with his tax cuts. Aside from that, the closest we came was in 2018 when we only saw about a $10 billion increase.
Setting 2020 aside, Trump has had the slowest growth over his full term of any president at least since the 1960’s other than GW’s first term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes the car had a designer, it's still a hunk of metal, oil, plastic and upholstery.But who shaped the metal, gathered the oil, made the plastic and upholstery?Is it possible for all those things to go into the exactly right place to make a car, from an explosion?
What does this have to do with free will and our value as human beings being subject to it?
If you want to move on and talk about intelligent design I'm fine with that, just acknowledge that you left that argument on the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So now we've departed from talking about free will and how its absence reduces human beings to mere stardust, to the argument for intelligent design.
Yes the car had a designer, it's still a hunk of metal, oil, plastic and upholstery.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
what's your alternative? a third option? or no options?
What's my alternative to what?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is what free thinking and having a mind of your own looks like folks. This is not right wing or left wing. This is being intellectually superior to those that pick a side and parrot what they hear on MSM. That you are free to form your own perspective without permission.
Free thinking? All he said was that we have to ask ourselves about the harm of phones and how 3 on the left vs 3 on the right is not news. Nothing about that is at all controversial or conflicts with any mainstream set of political opinions.
So what exactly is your criteria for determining that someone has a “mind of their own’? I am always amused by this insinuation, to me it's just a thought terminating cliche. There isn't an opinion out there one could espouse while sounding halfway intelligent that someone else didn't put out there first, so how exactly do you tell the difference between "I believe X because I concluded it" vs "I believe X because that's what I was told to believe"?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I agree Fox News and Republicans are to blame, believe it or not.But I also believe CNN and Democrats are to blame as well.Both sides are deeply corrupt. Sure, there are some honest people on both sides, but overall both sides have broken politics.
That’s not blaming republicans and Fox, that’s bothsidesism, the very point I along with the video are arguing against.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Came across these videos from a few years back and thought of this thread. These are definitely good depictions of how I see the issue...
How Fox News influences media coverage of political issues:
Admit it: Republicans have broken politics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If the universe has no meaning, and we are just the product of only the big bang, then yes, it is logical to identify us under the definition of "stardust.
What something is made out of is very different from what it is. A car is just a bunch of metal, oil, plastic, and upholstery, but you wouldn't use this verbage to describe a car. That's because there are ideas associated with words, in the case of a car the ability to get us from one place to another is the central idea, but that is absent when you describe it as merely what it is made out of.
This is the fallacy you are engaging in when you argue that there would be no reason to value one another if we're stardust. You're describing people in such a way that leaves out the central idea of what person is and then using the absence of that idea to make your argument sound like it makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I don't think you understand. Free will can't exist without a God.
That right there is the problem; You are putting the cart before the horse.
You begin by defining free will as something that only a God could explain, and then argue because it exists that proves a God exists. That's prima facie fallacious.
Things that do not exist cannot be used to explain other things. So in order to put forward something as a candidate explanation, you have to first prove it exists. To do it backwards as you are trying to do is inherently circular.
If free will is something that we experience, a God is not necessary to explain it as it is inherently part of our natural processes. If it's not something we experience, then what are we even talking about?
If we are just stardust, why does it matter if one stardust, kills another stardust.
The absence of some kind of divine free will does not make us "merely" stardust. We still have emotions, we still have values, we still have goals, we still have the ability to make decisions. Anything we would identify under the definition of "stardust" does not have those qualities.
But even setting all of that aside, this argument is still fallacious. Whether we would or should care about something is irrelevant to the fact of whether something exists. Existence is not subject to how we feel about it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Using Trump as an excuse for bad behavior on both the left and the right.
That's not what anyone else is talking about
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1} OGP, why do you like Trumpet so much?I don't
Here's a genuine question for you; as someone who constantly attacks Biden while saying nothing about Trump, and as someone who constantly accuses leftists of TDS...
What does TDS mean to you and how do you identify it in others?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Bill of Rights protects the people from institutional abuse by the government.Do you agree?
Uh, yeah. That's a big reason why our institutions have remained strong, thereby gaining the trust of the citizenry.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree, America achieved unique prosperity through the trust of the people to manage most of their own affairs without institutions. The Bill Of Rights is one unique American thing that keeps institutions out of the way of the people.
Institutions are the very thing that protect the people and create the environment that allows them to thrive in the first place.
A strong functioning government ensures that the money our economy was built off retains it's value.
A fair and aggressive department of justice ensures those who break the rules will be equally held accountable.
Strong regulatory agencies ensure consumers are protected from predatory business practices, which in turn boosts consumer confidence thereby increasing economic activity.
A free independent press ensures people can trust that they know what is happening in our society.
Etc etc etc.
These are things that non-prosperous countries lack. I don't know why you seem to think institutions are the enemy of a thriving society, it's the exact opposite. And it all requires trust in order to work.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Here, you mention “case by case,” implying specificity, and in the same sentence you say “generalizations.” Do you mean to say, “Whereas you mention a specific case here, my critiques have mostly been generalizations”? I just cannot tell…
I was contrasting two different things, that's why they were in the same sentence.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is this more philosophically important than a neutral attitude? Why should the media presume innocence before guilt?
Actions and attitude are two different things. You can be neutral in terms of your attitude but when it comes to how you proceed in terms of your actions there is no third option, you either align your actions with trust or you align your actions with distrust.
In our criminal justice system, a hung jury (symbolic of neutrality) would result in an acuital, which means treating the defendant as if he were innocent and letting him go (aligning with trust). The only other alternative is to keep him incarcerated (aligning with distrust).
Because neutrality does not translate in terms of how we act, a default position is logically necessary. In the criminal justice system you can either be innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. Your default mirrors your values. As a society we value protection of the innocence over punishment of the guilty, so we choose innocent until proven guilty.
So what should or default position be with regards to our institutions? Should we trust them until given a valid reason not to, or should we distrust them until given a valid reason to trust them?
I don't think this is a difficult choice because the latter is untenable. The US has become the most accomplished and most powerful nation on earth as well as the envy of the world (although that's questionable over the past decade). We accomplished this because of the strength of our institutions, and that strength is a direct result of the trust we as nation have had in them. Institutions that are not trusted are useless.
Also because it is nearly impossible to prove trustworthiness, that's almost like proving a negative. I could do the right thing 100 times, doesn't prove that I'm not waiting for the right opportunity to abuse my position. Meanwhile if I do the wrong thing once it proves I'm not trustworthy. There's an unavoidable imbalance there weighing against trust, the only way to balance out is through trust as our default.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
This is what I mean when I say that you employ gaslighting. You say one thing in one post only to walk it back or contradict yourself somehow in a later post.
It's not gaslighting, you're misrepresenting my argument. Here's is the full exchange on that first part:
Point out one of many reasons for the public’s growing mistrust in our institutions, and you get “But Trump tho!” It never seems to occur to them that part (or much) of Trump’s popularity is precisely because of that mistrust.But that mistrust is not based on facts, that's the point.
And here is the full quote to the second part showing what you left off:
Everything is case by case, my critiques of the political right on this have mostly been generalizations, not to paint "any" mistrust as being irrational.
The message here has been entirely consistent. When I talk about mistrust as a product of propaganda, I'm speaking generally about the political right. What your post implied was that leftists like myself dismiss any mistrust, as if to say no individual case could be rational. Those are two different things and the latter is a strawman. Any one individual might have a reasonable case to make based on their knowledge and/or experiences. But when I step back and look at this from 30k feet, that's not what I see overall.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Should the media ever start with a presumption that the government is trustworthy?
There is no such thing as "the government". It's not a thing that exists, it's an entity that we invented in paper which is represented in real life by actual people.
When it comes to evaluating the trustworthyness of any government official or group of people working in a government agency we have to look at their individual circumstances to determine what level of trust is appropriate. Does this individual have any reason to lie? Would doing so likely harm or help their personal well being? Does this individual have a history of lying? Etc.
People (as a generalization) will always act within their own personal best interests, we need to understand what those interests are before we can make a proper assessment, but within all of this the default position is to tentatively trust what an individual says until we have justification not to.
What is the benefit to society when speech does not primarily focus on truth in opposition to power? What is the benefit to society when speech primarily omits the transgressions of power?
I have no idea where these questions are coming from, these are not my presumptions.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Sure, but you state this as if it only cuts one way, which is precisely why I facetiously stated this earlier:“Clearly, the agenda is to paint any right wing mistrust in institutions as ill-founded. Everyone knows that the only rational mistrust comes from the left.”
It's not an agenda, it's an assessment based on examples like the one we're talking about and following the trends between things like what Trump says and the shifting of public opinion that immediately follows.
That is of course setting aside the absolutest language you use to describe it. Everything is case by case, my critiques of the political right on this have mostly been generalizations, not to paint "any" mistrust as being irrational.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No. Why would that matter, and if you really think it does a citation would be nice.Why would that matter?
You stated that he was funded by Joe Ricketts. First of all what does that even mean? Was Ricketts an advertiser? Are you claiming he owned the show?
Second, when was this? The David Pakman show is funded by it's advertisers, as is every other show. If this was some time ago then that is irrelevant now. If you're saying the guy owns the show now that would be quite a fraud you have uncovered... In which case a citation would be nice.
There’s all kinds of political commentary. There’s Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh kind of commentary, and there’s CNN and MSNBC. Big difference.
Pakman is neither.
I find it hard to believe that he is a credible source of news. What resources does he have at his disposal? Does he have a team of fact checkers and investigative reporters? Does he have an editor to keep him honest? Do you verify any information you get from him?
He reads, just as you suggested anyone interested in "real news" should do.
I don't just listen to him, I get my news from a number of different sources including Fox News. I like to hear every side of an issue because if anyone is going to provide the facts and logic to show you're wrong it's the people passionately pushing for the alternative narrative. It's why I spend so much time here arguing with right wingers.
I find him trustworthy because he always does a good job including and representing opposing viewpoints, has no problem admitting when "his side" is wrong and stresses people utilizing their own critical thinking abilities to challenge him rather than expecting anyone to just take his word for it. He is exactly the kind of commentator our politics needs.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I understand you said it was just one example in a long list, my point was that this is an example you clearly felt was representative of that list. And honestly, it in my experience it is exactly the kind of thing conservatives point to when making these arguments. It's why I talk about this with confidence, if there were better examples someone would have provided them by now.
But back to the point, yes I see Trump as a major cause where you see him as a symptom. I agree with you in the sense that this didn't start with Trump, it's been growing probably a good 40 years now going back to Regan's "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem" speech. That kind of philosophy can really only lead to this outcome - a point where there exists an entire media ecosystem built on telling people no one or there can be trusted and that the cause of their problems is [insert villain here]. Trump is just the one who took it mainstream.
Anyone can be villainized. When you have that level of resources devoted towards finding anything about you or your organization to highlight as an example of your untrustworthyness or worse, coupled with an audience looking to validate the preconceived notions you helped create there's only one way this goes.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
In itself, this is not a HUGE deal. What IS a big deal is the growing mistrust much of the citizenry has for many of our institutions. This particular misstep (as I see it) between the Whitehouse and a major media outlet is yet another in a long list of reasons for this growing mistrust.
I agree that the mistrust in our institutions is a huge deal, the question is what is driving it which we seem to have very different views on.
On the one hand, you're holding up an example of a cable news network failing to provide a proper disclaimer while covering a political story. On the other hand, I'm pointing to a former president and current front runner who routinely calls the free press the enemy of the people, attacks the FBI, attacks federal judges, attacks the national archives, attacks public health officials, and claims the current administration has successfully weaponized the federal government as an instrument to jail his political opponents (all with no evidence).
And then when I compare the two you act as if I'm engaging in logical fallacies. I'm not. If you're trying to cut back on monthly expenses, you look at that $500 a month car lease before worrying about the $7.99 you're spending on Disney plus.
If you really care about building back trust in public institutions, this isn't the place to focus your energy.
I’m fully aware this is what you believe, therefor you will have set a very high bar for that belief to be challenged.
The bar is that which aligns with reality, reached by following the basic principals of logic and epistemology. Present an argument with true premises from which your conclusion follows and I'll agree with you.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Did you know his show was financed by Joe Ricketts?
No. Why would that matter, and if you really think it does a citation would be nice.
A podcaster is a quack of the News profession. At best it’s a place to hear opinions. It’s not a credible source of news. They can say whatever they want.
It's political commentary, not really all that different from any of the other prime time cable news shows.
Blanket assertions are useless, credibility is judged case by case. I've been listening to him for years now, I find him just as credible if not more credible than any other prime time host.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I’m an intelligent left wing viewer and I’ve never heard of this guy until about a week ago here on DART.Intelligent people who follow politics don’t watch his kind of crap funded by a Joe Ricketts kind of guy.
Sounds like you have a real bias against any internet podcast type of program given that you never even heard of this guy but have already formed a judgement on his show and his viewers.
Not sure if you'd consider me an intelligent viewer, I am subscribed to his channel and watch his show regularly. In fact I consider him to be the political figure I would align myself with moreso than any other.
Created: