However, I personally think Trump is unsuitable to be president, so hey, wow, you're dead wrong again about me. — Thorongil

I don't get why you're going in to bat for him. I marched against Vietnam. Trump's election is a far greater threat to the world order than that was in my view.

I don't get why you're going in to bat for him. — Wayfarer

What does this mean? Why do you think I'm doing so? My original comment was about how I thought the claim that Trump is a liar is overblown. He doesn't generally lie. He speaks untruth he genuinely believes in. Moreover, because he is so inarticulate, much of what he says can be construed as a lie, when in reality it's just the media reading way too much into what he said and in the worst possible light.

You made fun of me for reading National Review. I don't read it that much, although I do like Hanson's columns. But as I told Baden, I read the mainstream liberal press everyday. Do you actually read any right leaning sources?

I marched against Vietnam in 1972. Trump's election is a far greater threat to the world order than that was. — Wayfarer

See, this is sheer hysteria. What the hell has he done that's so bad? The man's an arrogant, liberal New York businessman. I just don't see what's so sinister about him. "Oh, no, it's actually Bannon, the Goebbels behind the scenes who we need to look out for!" Well, what has he said or done that's so bad? I don't like him as a person, and I don't like his website, Breitbart, which is mostly clickbait garbage, but I fail to see what policy he's advocated or made Trump implement that's going to lead to the Holocaust 2.0 or whatever it is those on the left are so damned paranoid about. As I've told you before, get a grip, man.

That is why, when challenged in the courts, it was immediately suspended, and, note, it has now vanished altogether from the public discourse.. — Wayfarer

But Hanson is right. It makes sense to place some sort of a moratorium on immigration from countries whose populations we have little to no information about and which house large numbers of terrorists. These same countries were being watched by the Obama administration as particularly dangerous. — Thorongil

The thing is, no terrorists have been coming to America from these countries. Most terrorists in America come from America, what a surprise. If you want to stop terrorism in America, then focus on American terrorists.

The thing is, no terrorists have been coming to America from these countries. Most terrorists in America come from America, what a surprise. If you want to stop terrorism in America, then focus on American terrorists. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not an either/or, though. We can and should focus on both.

But why limit travel from countries where terrorists have not been coming to America from?

But why limit travel from countries where terrorists have not been coming to America from? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because they may come to America from said countries? Duh.

Why would you choose to take what he said that literally and then proceed to offer several articles covering certain events that happened today? Do you honestly think he's going to dispute that they are reporting on real events? — Thorongil

If he's consistent, yes, and I'm taking at face value the words he said because he said them. I'm not interested in debating your interpretation of what he thinks. He said it. It means something. It's up to him to backtrack on it, not you. But let's see if he'll admit -according to your interpretation- that the vast majority of the stories on CNN are reporting real events. In other words, it's not a "fake news" channel, it's a real news channel if a somewhat biased one.

No I didn't. — Thorongil

You just did again. At least have the integrity to fully justify your own claims. Anyway if the mountain won't come to Muhammad...I'll take on one of your examples, the phrase "Muslim ban". There was actually a ban as you know; it did actually target countries which are predominantly Muslim; and Trump had actually specified in the past that Muslims were his target (though he knew the constitution prevented him from making that obvious in the legislation); so while calling it a "Muslim ban" puts a questionable slant on it, and could qualify as biased news, it doesn't qualify as "fake news". Besides, journalists speak in shorthand, they're going to talk about an X ban. What other adjective X comes closer to covering the spirit of what Trump was trying to do?

Here's where nuance comes in. You can't put the kind of thing above in the same category as, for example, Trump's claim that Ted Cruz's dad was involved with the assassination of JFK. That was actually a fake news story; it was made up to discredit Cruz, and Trump (unless he's a complete idiot) knew that and knowingly spread the lie. So, while what the mainstream media does with their bias (on the left and right) is sometimes unethical, it's not "fake news", whereas the type of stories Trump himself has relied on to get him where he is, demonstrably, are. And his and others' claims that it's the other way around are lies.

My original comment was about how I thought the claim that Trump is a liar is overblown. He doesn't generally lie. He speaks untruth he genuinely believes in. — Thorongil

But you can't be informed about that. As I said before, there is a fact-checking service called Politifact - it is neither right nor left, it simply assesses claims as they are made, against the facts. They documented numerous untruths by Trump during the campaign - at one stage, it was something like 267 documented untruths, distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies. That is not 'fake news', that is actual documented claims. And that was just the campaign.

Sure, sometimes Trump will tell untruths without meaning to actually lie, because he makes it up as he goes along. But he reacts, often highly emotionally, to perceived slights and insults, and in so doing, he will make a lot of wild claims. Again, this is all documented. Again, those who are calling this out, are now being accused of 'spreading fake news'. Can't you see how serious that is?

Don't you think, if the Dems had won the election, and their nominee for National Security Adviser had been caught out speaking to the Russian ambasador, before he or she had even been appointed, and then lied about it[/b], to the Vice President Elect, that the GOP would be screaming 'treason'?

Speaking of hysteria, you no doubt recall the crowds shrieking 'Lock her up' at the Republican National Convention last year. Do you remember what the alleged crime was, for which she was to be 'locked up'? Hasn't Trump already been found to have been involved in far worse, since then? He collects rent from foreign governments, against the Constitution. Can't you see the rank hypocrisy in this?

I don't think it's the case that Trump doesn't know when he's lying. I think it's the case that you don't understand what's happening.

Do you actually read any right leaning sources? — Thorongil

I read Mary Eberstadt, David Brooks, Ross Douthat - they're all regarded as conservatives although the latter two write for NYT. I am socially conservative and I disagreed with many of the social policies of the US democrats (and here in Australia, I disagree with many of the social policies of Labour and Greens.) I read the National Review from time to time. But I really can't abide the linkage between conservative politics and climate-change denial, 'gun rights', and taking all the restraints of big business.

My natural political affiliation would be, I think, in the American political scene, with conservative democrats.

See, this is sheer hysteria. What the hell has he done that's so bad? The man's an arrogant, liberal New York businessman — Thorongil

This is the man who has the nuclear codes. This is the man whose economic decisions will affect the welfare of the whole planet. So far he's dedicated to building trade barriers, increasing racial discrimination, tearing up the Dodd Frank act (which is the firewall against corporate perfidy on Wall St), abolishing environmental protections and destroying the health insurance industry. What's to like? That's not hysteria, it's a rational reaction to an irrational situation.

Incidentally, the only potential "fake news" article about Trump and co. in the mainstream media that I can think of was the one in the UK's Daily Mail about Melania being a hooker. It's quite possible they or one of their journalists just made that up or relied on an unreliable source. A pretty reprehensible and disgusting thing to do to a public figure, particularly one who hasn't chosen to be a public figure. But the Daily Mail is a right wing conservative rag not a progressive lefty one. (And I hope she takes them to the cleaners with her lawsuit).

If he's consistent — Baden

You didn't answer my question. Why did you choose to interpret his remarks hyper literally?

it doesn't qualify as "fake news". — Baden

It's my understanding that Trump uses this phrase to talk about the excessive vitriol and bias directed against him in the mainstream media. You seem to be taking it literally, once again. Any news story is likely going to contain some nugget of truth. The problem is the way it's presented. That being said, some stories are completely false through and through, like the one about Trump removing the bust of MLK.

What other adjective X comes closer to covering the spirit of what Trump was trying to do? — Baden

Travel. :-|

Can't you see how serious that is? — Wayfarer

No, because Trump isn't revoking the freedom of the press to report such things.

you no doubt recall the crowds shrieking 'Lock her up' at the Republican National Convention last year. Do you remember what the alleged crime was, for which she was to be 'locked up'? — Wayfarer

Likely criminal behavior leads to jail time, yes, so it seems a reasonable request to me. Clinton probably should be in jail, and not just for the email scandal.

He collects rent from foreign governments, against the Constitution. — Wayfarer

Highly debatable, and no where near as bad as what Hillary does.

I think it's the case that you don't understand what's happening. — Wayfarer

Which is what? The inauguration of Hitler? I can almost see the froth on your mouth from here.

I read Mary Eberstadt, David Brooks, Ross Douthat — Wayfarer

Meh. That's a start I guess.

building trade barriers — Wayfarer

And I disagree with him on this.

increasing racial discrimination — Wayfarer

False.

tearing up the Dodd Frank act — Wayfarer

It was a terrible bill.

abolishing environmental protections — Wayfarer

Too vague an insinuation.

destroying the health insurance industry — Wayfarer

Lol. No. Although, that's an industry most on the left hate, too, so I imagine they would welcome its destruction.

What's to like? — Wayfarer

He can balance out the supreme court with an originalist, he's a kick in the teeth to PC leftists, his tax plan looks good, and he is at least aware that radical Islamic terrorism is a real thing and a problem.

You didn't answer my question. Why did you choose to interpret his remarks hyper literally? — Thorongil

Don't be so ridiculous. He said A. I interpreted it as A for the sake of argument as I explained in the post. When he answers, we'll see if you're right and he accepts that CNN mostly consists of real news about reality. I'll be happy if he does.

It's my understanding that Trump uses this phrase to talk about the excessive vitriol and bias directed against him in the mainstream media. You seem to be taking it literally, once again. — Thorongil

No, he's literally saying the stories are fake. Have you actually listened to him? This is the problem, you want to have your cake and eat it. You know very well that the lack of nuance leads to the conflation among his supporters of outlets like CNN with actual fake news outlets like the National Inquirer. And that's his intention. But again, you feel like you have to cover for him. So, it's highly ironic to hear you talk about bias. You're willing to say in less than a hot minute that Hillary is a liar because she's not on your team. Confronted with the reality that Trump is just as big and probably a much bigger liar, you have to find excuses for him like he's just too dumb to know what he's saying is false or he shouldn't be taken literally. Why? Because you're biased yourself. Can't you see that? I have no problem admitting that both of them are liars because it's demonstrable. You can take their speeches and find the falsehoods. They're right there. Why is it so hard for you?

(And seeing as you're so obviously biased, I should follow Trump’s lead and start calling your writings "fake posts", right? :s )

I think it's the case that you don't understand what's happening.
— Wayfarer

Which is what? The inauguration of Hitler? I can almost see the froth on your mouth from here. — Thorongil

No, that America has elected a narcissist and congenital liar as President. No, he's not 'like Hitler'. If that is your standard for bloody awful, then I guess what you've picked is OK.

This isn't the Alex Jones Youtube channel, it's a philosophy forum, and it's this kind of low quality thoughtless statement that makes people put you on their ignore list. — Baden

Right, it's a philosophy forum, where we're supposed to respect each other, and yet you hypocritically proceeds to insult others and accuse their ideas to be "low quality" and "thoughtless" because they don't agree with you. Then you'll start complaining "Argh Agustino, he's so nasty" - but I'd merely be responding in the same tone that you respond.

Let's presume you really believe that most of what news outlets such as CNN report has "nothing to do with reality" and is creating a "fantasy world". — Baden

Yes, however, you're too categorical and literalist in reading what I said. What I said can be translated in more accurate terms as most of what the media reports is false - say 90% false and 10% true.

These journalists didn't learn to report news at their colleges and universities, they just sit at home making stuff up, or what? — Baden

No I didn't say this. I said they falsify the news that they report by exaggerating them, reframing them, and so forth.

If your answer is "yes" to these questions, then guess what, this is not "fake news", CNN is reporting reality. — Baden

No they're not, because they're reframing those events howsoever they want. There are no context-less facts.

They are not just making things up and "creating a fantasy word" — Baden

Yes they are. Take the travel ban on what was it, 7 countries or so, which was immediately framed as a Muslim ban. That's fake news. There was no Muslim ban.

Speaking of hysteria, you no doubt recall the crowds shrieking 'Lock her up' at the Republican National Convention last year — Wayfarer

And? Shouldn't she be locked up? There has probably never been a more corrupt family in American politics than the Clintons - they have their hands in all the pies.

He collects rent from foreign governments, against the Constitution. — Wayfarer

No, HE doesn't, his businesses do. So it seems you too are engaged in the propagation of fake news.

I don't get why you're going in to bat for him. I marched against Vietnam. Trump's election is a far greater threat to the world order than that was in my view. — Wayfarer

Fear mongering.

It is indisputable - beyond debate - that Donald J Trump frequently lies, dissembles, exagerrates, and engages in other falsehoods. — Wayfarer

Just like how it was beyond debate that Crooked was a corrupt liar, and yet you kept reciting New York Times propaganda?

I read NY Times and Washington Post online — Wayfarer

It shows. The NY Times - probably the most liberal-progressive source of articles out there. Someone sent me an article on dating from them awhile ago, it was disgustingly false and propagandistic.

Then you'll start complaining "Argh Agustino, he's so nasty" — Agustino

You're not nasty, you're just a very unintelligent liar.

What I said can be translated in more accurate terms as most of what the media reports is false - say 90% false and 10% true. — Agustino

For example, first you say that what 90% of the media reports is false, which is easily refuted. And even your BFF Thorongil isn't going to follow you down that rabbit hole. But look at your reason:

No they're not, because they're reframing those events howsoever they want. There are no context-less facts. — Agustino

You dismiss the sample stories I gave you as "reframed" and "context-less" as if that suddenly makes them false. How stupid do you think the people reading this are? Of course, there are no context-less facts, so therefore news stories have to be "reframed" but, guess what, by this definition everything is fake news. Not only that but seeing as the facts you are reporting here are reframed and are not context-less, everything you say is fake too. This is how trivially stupid your approach is.

But let's again take you at your word that you really believe the idiotic things you're saying:

I said they falsify the news that they report by exaggerating them, reframing them, and so forth. — Agustino

Show me how those stories I quoted, for example, are 90% false through exaggeration and "so forth". I chose them fairly randomly from the news sidebar so if 90% of CNN is false they should be about 90% false and you should be able to show us why. Go ahead.

You're not nasty, you're just a very unintelligent liar. — Baden

idiotic things you're saying — Baden

trivially stupid your approach is. — Baden

What did I say?

Right, it's a philosophy forum, where we're supposed to respect each other, and yet you hypocritically proceed to insult others and accuse their ideas to be "low quality" and "thoughtless" because they don't agree with you. — Agustino

Seems like I was right.

"context-less" — Baden

Actually no, I didn't dismiss them as context-less. Anyway, when you decide to uphold the very rules that you yourself advocate, and treat others with respect, I may reply to you again.

Why would anyone have respect for you when you come out with the stuff you do? You're lying through your teeth in a way that's insulting to the intelligence of everyone who reads your posts. And further, I presume this new found sensitivity of yours is just a way to avoid answering the question. You know you can't show those news stories are 90% false as obviously they aren't.

Okay fine, if you don't want to respect me, then we can't have a conversation together, end of story. So I will not reply anymore to you until you decide to be respectful.

And further, I presume this new found sensitivity of yours is just a way to avoid answering the question. — Baden

No, it's a way of respecting the rules of the forums, whatever they are. I haven't set them anyway. But if you expect me to respect them, then you should respect them yourself. I can't delete your posts, but you can delete mine - so that asymmetry pretty much ensures you can insult me as much as you want, without me being able to insult back. So fine, you can go ahead with that if that's what you want, enjoy the authoritarianism. But I'm here just to discuss the ideas, not really trade insults anyway.

No, it's a way of respecting the rules of the forums, whatever they are. I haven't set them anyway. But if you expect me to respect them, then you should respect them yourself. I can't delete your posts, but you can delete mine. — Agustino

Pointing out that your posts are idiotic when they obviously are is not against the forum rules. And I don't actually want idiotic posts littering what is supposed to be a high quality forum. You are the one more in contravention of the rules with the low quality nonsense you peddle here. If you weren't in conversation with me, they might indeed get deleted. But because you are, I'm not going to touch them.

So fine, you can go ahead with that if that's what you want, enjoy the authoritarianism. But I'm here just to discuss the ideas, not really trade insults anyway. — Agustino

Well, I appreciate the personality transplant, but cry me a river. When it comes to politics it looks to me like you're not here to discuss ideas, you're here to evangelize.

you have to find excuses for him like he's just too dumb to know what he's saying is false or he shouldn't be taken literally — Baden

This hardly sounds like I'm "covering for him." And you haven't refuted what I said. Granted, it would be difficult to refute, since it's just my impression of him, but I am not a great fan of Trump. Let me say that again: I am not a great fan of Trump. Your efforts to pin me down as some mindless devotee are comical to say the least. You and Wayfarer seem way too emotional when it comes to Trump, which clouds your judgment of him and those on the right. Look at what he's done and then make a judgment. Vituperating over every little thing he says, as if it's obvious what he means or what policies might result from it, is really tiresome. We're not living in some apocalyptic, gas chamber filled Orwellian hellscape and nothing he's done even remotely suggests we're headed in that direction, despite the best efforts of the media and those on the left to say that we are.

I have no problem admitting that both of them are liars because it's demonstrable. You can take their speeches and find the falsehoods. They're right there. Why is it so hard for you? — Baden

What the hell is your problem? I never implied, nor wish to imply, that Trump never lies. I merely wanted to point out that a lie is different from telling an untruth and that I thought Trump was guilty more of the latter than the former.

No, that America has elected a narcissist and congenital liar as President. No, he's not 'like Hitler'. If that is your standard for bloody awful, then I guess what you've picked is OK. — Wayfarer

Name me a president who wasn't a narcissist and a liar. And it's your side that keeps painting him as a horrible, awful dictator.

We're not living in some apocalyptic, gas chamber filled Orwellian hellscape and nothing he's done even remotely suggests we're headed in that direction, despite the best efforts of the media and those on the left to say that we are. — Thorongil

No, we're not and if you've read other stuff I've said about him, you'd know I know that. But you took the word tyranny that I used "hyper-literally" to use your own phrase, which is fine the first time - I knew when I wrote it it was somewhat of an exaggeration - but I did specify later that I meant it in the narrow sense of what he's doing with the media. He's not going to get away with much more.

What the hell is your problem? I never implied, nor wish to imply, that Trump never lies. I merely wanted to point out that a lie is different from telling an untruth and that I thought Trump was guilty more of the latter than the former. — Thorongil

The issue is not whether Trump ever lies, everyone lies sometimes, it's whether or not he can be characterized as a liar. You seemed to be suggesting that was in dispute. If you're not, fine.

No, we're not and if you've read other stuff I've said about him, you'd know I know that. But you took the word tyranny that I used "hyper-literally" to use your own phrase, which is fine the first time - I knew when I wrote it it was somewhat of an exaggeration - but I did specify later that I meant it in the narrow sense of what he's doing with the media. He's not going to get away with much more. — Baden

Good.

The issue is not whether Trump ever lies, everyone lies sometimes, it's whether or not he can be characterized as a liar. You seemed to be suggesting that was in dispute. If you're not, fine. — Baden

I think what I was suggesting is plain for all to see.

Because they may come to America from said countries? Duh. — Thorongil

Oh, so it makes sense to ban travel from Turkey, Greece, Germany, France, Britain, and Canada, and every country, because terrorists could come to America from those places? We already know that terrorists have come from Canada to the U.S., why not ban travel from Canada first and foremost?

Take the travel ban on what was it, 7 countries or so, which was immediately framed as a Muslim ban. That's fake news. There was no Muslim ban. — Agustino

Fact is that the claimed motive behind the proposed travel ban is completely inconsistent logically, therefore we can conclude that the true motive remains unrevealed. Since it is unrevealed, we can only assume that the reasons for not revealing it is that the true motive is something untoward. So we are left to speculate as to what that untoward motive is.

You and Wayfarer seem way too emotional when it comes to Trump, which clouds your judgment of him and those on the right. Look at what he's done and then make a judgment. — Thorongil

When Trump emerged as a contender, you may recall, there was the widespread belief that it was publicity stunt for his businesses, and that his campaign would eventually self-destruct. Then as the months wore on and the pattern of his campaign emerged, the goalposts kept shifting. But the chances of 'President Trump' were thought by most commentators, and certainly by me, to be zero - and then he won the election. I was quite prepared to acknowledge him if he rose above the mendacity and stupidity of his election campaign - but he hasn't. It's been a litany of errors and bad judgements.

Name me a president who wasn't a narcissist and a liar. And it's your side that keeps painting him as a horrible, awful dictator. — Thorongil

In this century, nobody comes near Trump in those stakes. I don't have 'a side', I have an opinion, and it's not that he's a horrible awful dictator, but that he is mendacious, narcissistic, and incompetent to lead.

An interesting, insightful, and balanced article on Steve Bannon, in today's New Satan, er New York Times here.

Some snippets:

“Think about it,” he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. “Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis.” He warned against “the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism,” by which he meant “a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people.” Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a “Judeo-Christian” foundation.

---

When Mr. Bannon came to Hollywood, [in 1990s] Ms. Jones [a co-writer] says, he was less political. For two years, according to Ms. Jones, the two of them worked on the outline of a 26-part television series about seekers after the secrets of the human self, from Arthur Conan Doyle to Nietzsche to Madame Blavatsky to Ramakrishna to the Baal Shem Tov to Geronimo. “It was his idea,” she said. “He assembled all the people.”

But the Sept. 11 attacks, Ms. Jones says, changed him, and their collaboration did not survive his growing engagement with politics. Speaking of his films, she says, “He developed a kind of propaganda-type tone of voice that I found offensive.” Ms. Jones is a literary person, left-liberal in politics. She regrets that Mr. Bannon “has found a home in nationalism.” But she does not believe he is any kind of anarchist, let alone a racist.

---

Those focused on Mr. Bannon’s ideology are probably barking up the wrong tree. There are plenty of reasons for concern about Mr. Bannon, but they have less to do with where he stands on the issues than with who he is as a person. He is a newcomer to political power and, in fact, relatively new to an interest in politics. He is willing to break with authority. While he does not embrace any of the discredited ideologies of the last century, he is attached to a theory of history’s cycles that is, to put it politely, untested. Most ominously, he is an intellectual in politics excited by grand theories — a combination that has produced unpredictable results before.

Especially now.

Most ominously, he is an intellectual in politics excited by grand theories — a combination that has produced unpredictable results before.

And I predict it will do so again, according to this theory I have.

It's been a litany of errors and bad judgements. — Wayfarer

Yeah, but nothing approaching the apocalypse, so you can cool your jets.

In this century, nobody comes near Trump in those stakes. — Wayfarer

How could you possibly know that?

In this century, nobody comes near Trump in those stakes. — Wayfarer

If by this century you mean the last 100 years, you just don't know what you're talking about. Do you know who Augusto Pinochet was?! Do you know who Pol Pot is?! Really I feel that many people here know very little history, not meaning this in an insulting way. I mean if you consider Trump to be so much trouble, then you really have no idea how most of human history has been like...

Yeah, but nothing approaching the apocalypse, so you can cool your jets. — Thorongil

It has been the case, since the 1950's, that there are sufficient thermonuclear weapons to effectively end life on earth.

Short of that, the global economic system came within hours of collapse on September 18th 2008.

Do you know who Augusto Pinochet was?! Do you know who Pol Pot is?! — Agustino

My remark was in response to this question:

Name me a president who wasn't a narcissist and a liar. — Thorongil

My response was about American Presidents and I stand by it.

So? Trump didn't cause the recession. You're bringing up red herrings.