Not the way politics works, favors beget favors. If HRC made pres, Schultz would have had a nice position in HRC's administration.

I could argue that the RNC was stacked against Trump.
But he still won the nomination.

I don't understand why it is cheating to win more delegates than your opponent, that is the entire point.

The idea is to win more delegates given an equal playing field, not one rigged behind the scenes, which is what happened.

After Sanders’ sweeping win in New Hampshire, the DNC went into hyper drive to break his momentum, starting in the next voting state Nevada.

Concerned Sanders would win Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader and most powerful elected official in Nevada, as it later emerged, arranged a plan with owners of Las Vegas casinos, where many caucuses were being held, and other employers, to ensure Clinton would win. The Nevada caucuses were then rigged with massive voting irregularities such as casino owners orchestrating which workers would be allowed to vote and, in clear intimidation, openly monitoring how they voted.

Well, for the record, I also distinctly recall people sporting Obama-the-Hitler posters shortly after the time of his election. Some, in so terming Obama, were bothered by the “socialization of health care”—even though the single-payer system never even made it to the table. They weren’t Democrats. Many seem to be the same that currently support Trump, together with things such as him being justified in not knowing what “alt-right” groups signify and intend.

I say, back to lottery elections … what democracy ought to be! That way we begin to once again hold civic care rather than shrugging our shoulders over what the next-door neighbor claims to be true [just mentioned statement about lottery elections should not be taken seriously in a verbatim manner … although I am tempted to vote for it if anybody manages to put it on the ballot]

...it is worth noting when history repeats itself. — Banno

One can note that the extremes of left and right in the persons of Stalin and Hitler are similar in many repugnant ways. I don't see the need to call Stalin a Nazi or Hitler a Communist, except to annoy them.

Whats that quote about tragedy repeating as farce?

From article in HuffingtonPost today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker said his newspaper would not refer to false statements from the Trump administration as “lies,” because doing so would ascribe a “moral intent” to the statements.

He thinks calling them lies interjects a judgement that is not there in his statements.

He said reporters should state the facts, but leave classifying them to readers, citing the example of Trump’s claim that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were celebrating on 9/11 (which is false).

Problem: people believe what they read, especially in places like the WSJ.

On the topic:

Richard Rorty and the Origins of Post-Truth
ANA SANDOIU
The Partially Examined Life
Dec 2016


Anyway, if we suppose that a major meteor impact was to happen, then, ex hypothesi, no manner of post-truth will save the truthers.
Thus, discovering the world on it's own terms also matters, if you will.
(That's assuming the truthers wish to continue post-truth'ing.) :)

Another neat summation.

My reply to Rorty would be that if all we have is conversation "disembodied" from the world around us, then those with existing power will be able to dominate that conversation. That is, his recipe for a liberal paradise will result in a conservative world in which those with more power dominate the conversation.

While I have great sympathy for the view that any statement should be held eligible for review, the actual result is not progress, but a mere floundering, as can be seen ubiquitously hereabouts.

...

My reply to Rorty would be that if all we have is conversation "disembodied" from the world around us, then those with existing power will be able to dominate that conversation. That is, his recipe for a liberal paradise will result in a conservative world in which those with more power dominate the conversation. — Banno

Those who are in power usually do dominate the conversation, don't they?

There is no problem opposing people with the words they choose to identify with.

I would also say it's not out of line to make historical comparisons. For instance, white supremacy is a much more widely shared value than the number of people who would call themselves white supremacists -- the frame is usually more along the lines of "we just want to be with our own people, with our own culture, and take pride in our European heritage" -- but when those words also lead to hate crimes, there's more going on than what's on the face.

There are always going to be points of comparison just as there is never going to be identical historical moments. So there will never be a perfect comparison and there will always be the possibility of comparison, both. It's more a matter of making out what's similar to hopefully have a better understanding of what is going on now. There's some judgment involved in determining whether such-and-such a comparison is a "significant" comparison, and that significance happens somewhere in the middle between those two extremes.

Since Gore Vidal said it, probably. People regularly compared GWBush to Hitler. There was nothing particularly fascist about him — Mongrel

Some Democrats did, yes. Not all, though, and those who didn't -- while they opposed Bush 2 -- thought it was silly to make said comparison, for the reason you note here.

He continued an American trend of bringing power to the executive, and helped kick off the surveillance state, but I wouldn't say he was a fascist, either.

The question is: what difference does it make? — Mongrel

To me, at least, it is worth to look to have some kind of expectation to either contradict or confirm. Rather than, say, believing that we just have some villages which have a need for people and so we are shipping such-and-such people there, I might view such an action with a deeper suspicion.

Also, it helps to understand what is likely to actually influence a person in political power. This is why categories like "Democrat" and "Republican" are used, no? Because there are some general tendencies which don't always apply, and may not even be in the majority of the cases, but which we can expect to find often enough to note and check for. This is true even for people who aren't deeply involved in politics.

And it helps to know when something is being tried which hasn't worked before in similar circumstances, or vice versa, or simply to know the way certain trends could go. This will help a person to make better political choices in line with their values. So, in this case, we might say that it is good for Trump to promise jobs to people. But we could note that those jobs only go to some people, and not everyone, and so it may not help us after all. Or, we could note that "jobs", as a catch-all category, isn't something the President has much power over, which is why most presidents say things along these lines in the first place, because it sounds good and they don't have to deliver much on it.

The difference here, I think, would depend a great deal on what level of involvement we are willing to partake in, and what our beliefs about the way things should be. I mean, clearly, a fascist would be happy that a proto-fascist is gaining power and legitimating what they believe in, no?

It's hard for me to think of a scenario where the US crashes into a fascist ditch. But whatever it is, it's not something to be glib about. It's horrendous. — Mongrel

Eh, I figure it has happened before, so insofar that people's motivations and circumstances are similar then there's a possibility of it happening again. No country is immune to morphing into something it didn't begin as, at least.

I agree that it's nothing to be glib about.

A relevant article from yesterday, which puts some meat on the bones of my post:

Why Have People “Had Enough of Experts”?

I think suspicion of experts is more typical of rightists. Their point is that Nature is the super-expert. Convolutedly, this outlook was shown to be flawed by the failure of an expert who championed nature: Alan Greenspan.

Some Democrats did, yes. Not all, though, and those who didn't -- while they opposed Bush 2 -- thought it was silly to make said comparison, for the reason you note here. — Moliere

Sure. I was the one in the crowd claiming that the comparison was inappropriate. I was silenced by the rage. It's easy to forget exactly how angry part of the American population was about GWBush.

A relevant article from yesterday, which puts some meat on the bones of my post:

Why Have People “Had Enough of Experts”? — jamalrob

Cool.
Though, where no one is obliged to automatically listen to subject matter experts, neither are anyone entitled to automatically dismiss them.
Mere post-truth dissidentry without reason won't do.

Indeed; hence "post-truth" dynamics do not lead to Rorty's paradise, but to Trump.

Fair enough.

https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/l/t1.0-0/s480x480/16003114_946223315477116_5219883453846055984_n.jpg?oh=6da1e91ffea8afe642e6a944fd8c2af5&oe=59245BCD

Ha!
Nice one

Grayling, on this topic:

Appropriately for a philosopher, he identifies post-modernism and relativism as the intellectual roots "lurking in the background" of post-truth.

I'm convinced a career in philosophy doesn't make you any better at thinking. Any time a philosopher opines on anything to the public, I cringe.

Any time a philosopher opines on anything to the public, I cringe. — The Great Whatever

Should I care about your conviction?

Yes.

Why?

Because I'm right about everything.

Because I'm right about everything. — The Great Whatever

*bows* 8-)

Why should I share your conviction that you are right about everything?

Because then you would be right about things, if you listened to me and believed whatever I said.

Only if your convictions are indeed correct.

But why should we think they are? You are not at all convincing.

But why should we think they are? You are not at all convincing. — Banno

But... I'm convinced :-O