Yes, it was, I especially liked the predictable moment when the bolding appears, as usual accompanied by the very plausible claim that it does not represent a raised tone at all but is rather for the practical purpose of distinguishing sandy comments from the others they are responding to. >:O

Yes indeed. Which is strange because he at least claims to be quite well read, but some of these actions seem quite childish and peculiar to me.

"To win a crowd is no art; for that only untruth is needed, nonsense, and a little knowledge of human passions. But no witness to the truth dares to get involved with the crowd." -- K

"To win a crowd is no art; for that only untruth is needed, nonsense, and a little knowledge of human passions. But no witness to the truth dares to get involved with the crowd." -- K — Mongrel

That is correct.

But the truth - and this forum proves it - is that I don't "win" people at first at all. Quite the contrary, people often start by hating or disliking me. It is only after a long time and arduous journey that I win "crowds", if it can be said I do so at all. I've always been the underdog, not only here, but in other areas of life too.

And I respect people who are willing to be the underdog, but it does take some courage to do that, and not cowardice. I do like people who refuse the price of "fitting in".

Recent discussion here inadvertently cuts to the core of the topic of this thread.

Unfortunately, being well read is nowhere near enough unless it includes reading well, and not merely reading much and being able to regurgitate some of what has been read.

There does seem to be some strange compulsive schoolyard insult syndrome going on: "You're a troll and an idiot", "No, you're the only troll and idiot", "No, you are..." and so on.



Thanks for that nugget, Banno; care to explain what you are driving at?

An OP from today's NY Times: Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication.

A few stand outs: the Ordination Crowd lie, the Illegal Voters lie, the Boy Scout Leader's Phone Call lie. But there are many to choose from.

The glaring difference between Mr. Trump and his predecessors is the sheer magnitude of falsehoods and exaggerations; PolitiFact rates just 20 percent of the statements it reviewed as true, and a total of 69 percent either mostly false, false or “Pants on Fire.” That leaves [presidential historian Doris] Goodwin to wonder whether Mr. Trump, in elevating the art of political fabrication, has forever changed what Americans are willing to tolerate from their leaders.

“What’s different today and what’s scarier today is these lies are pointed out, and there’s evidence that they’re wrong,” she said. “And yet because of the attacks on the media, there are a percentage of people in the country who are willing to say, ‘Maybe he is telling the truth.’”

Or - maybe it doesn't matter, because 'all politicians lie', which seems to be the narrative amongst some contributors here.

An OP from today's NY Times: Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication.

A few stand outs: the Ordination Crowd lie, the Illegal Voters lie, the Boy Scout Leader's Phone Call lie. But there are many to choose from.

Sorry, but an opinion piece is just that--an opinion piece. It is not evidentiary support for your opinion.

The glaring difference between Mr. Trump and his predecessors is the sheer magnitude of falsehoods and exaggerations; PolitiFact rates just 20 percent of the statements it reviewed as true, and a total of 69 percent either mostly false, false or “Pants on Fire.” That leaves [presidential historian Doris] Goodwin to wonder whether Mr. Trump, in elevating the art of political fabrication, has forever changed what Americans are willing to tolerate from their leaders.

And Politifact is a biased publication that is no arbiter for who has been more truthful or not. Considering George W. Bush was one of the most mendacious presidents we've ever had. Their estimation means little. And considering Goodwin plagiarized on one of her books, her judging truthfulness is laughable.

What’s different today and what’s scarier today is these lies are pointed out, and there’s evidence that they’re wrong,” she said. “And yet because of the attacks on the media, there are a percentage of people in the country who are willing to say, ‘Maybe he is telling the truth.’”

The fact people--on both the Left and the Right--don't believe the media is because they have been shamefully biased in backing specific candidate, have backed every military operation for years, have purposely ignored important stories like DAPL because they were inconvenient, and have told many half-truths, manipulated truths and straight up-lies. So, criticisms of that aren't attacks on the media, they're legit criticisms of a corrupt, incompetent mainstream media.

And people pointed out Bush', Clinton's, Reagan's and Obama's lies too; they're supporters still believed them.

Or - maybe it doesn't matter, because 'all politicians lie', which seems to be the narrative amongst some contributors here.

Nobody said it "doesn't matter," so now the lying one is you. And most, if not all, politicians lie--even those with great integrity like Bernie Sanders. Anyone who believes otherwise is just deluding themselves.

Yes, it was, I especially liked the predictable moment when the bolding appears, as usual accompanied by the very plausible claim that it does not represent a raised tone at all but is rather for the practical purpose of distinguishing sandy comments from the others they are responding to.

No, it was bolding to delineate my statements from my interlocutors. But keep trying to foment Augustino's sad, deluded hostility without contributing anything to the forum topic...and such an angry emolji, too.

I'm not reading Augustino's posts anymore, but feel free to actually address my arguments anytime instead of chatting about me. I wasn't aware this was the Gossip Forum.

Yup. I tried to make Heiddy's notion of truth fit, but it seems that those who most often talk about a post truth world aren't thinking along those lines...

Although, Augustino seems to be. S/he also reminds me of some who are pro-Trump simply because he is so disruptive...

that's like - hey I don't like where this bus is heading. I know! Let's hire someone who can't drive! That'll learn 'em!

I'm sure that some don't give it much thought Jeep. I suspect Augustino has more faith in the institutions to prevail on the other side in better shape than before despite Trump's lack of experience...

↪creativesoul that's like - hey I don't like where this bus is heading. I know! Let's hire someone who can't drive! That'll learn 'em!

We could be having the best, most compassionate, and most visionary candidate--Bernie Sanders--driving the bus, but the DNC had to rig the primary against him for the inferior war-hawk candidate.

Former CNN announcer provides the "real news", as if.

How important is rational thinking as it pertains to the topic?

Never mind how long deliberate deceit has been happening in government. Never mind who did what and when. Never mind all of that...

How important is rational thinking to being able to identify the issues.

Define the problem.

We cannot possibly expect to be able to correct the issues(whatever they may be) without first defining the problem.

Knowing what the problem is requires - amongst other things - being able to distinguish between competing reports. Reports consist of statements. Thus, the ability to know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial to being able to identify and correct the problem(s)...

Knowing what the problem is requires - amongst other things - being able to distinguish between competing reports. Reports consist of statements. Thus, the ability to know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial to being able to identify and correct the problem(s)...

This has been a great difficulty for mankind throughout its history...and probably always will be.

Now we're talking...

I'd like to see it continue.

Sounds good.

What's so difficult about defining the problem?

Let's set them all out. If there is a single thread that ties them all together, it's something worth looking at.

Agree?

The problems are twofold:

1. There is never just one problem; there are always many that are never neatly tied together.

2. A single problem can never be identified or reduced into full clarity as what that problem is and what exactly constitutes and contributes to that problem can never be fully discerned or agreed on.

The problem under discussion in this particular thread is that the most powerful nation-state on the planet has elected a mendacious narcissist with no record of public service and no apparent administrative ability as its leader.

The problem under discussion in this particular thread is that the most powerful nation-state on the planet has elected a mendacious narcissist with no record of public service and no apparent administrative ability as its leader.

We definitely had that under Dubya (who a lot of centrist Democrats love for some disturbing reason), and pretty much had it under Reagan, too. The problem Is not him as a person, it is his horrific policies, some which are continuations of Obama's. Those policies:

1. A racist immigration policy that could resurface in another form
2. The stripping down of the EPA
3. The cutting of progressive policies like free heating funding for poor elderly
4. The assault on public education under Devos
5. The continuation of Obama and Hillary's shameful alliance, business partnership with Saudi Arabia
6. The continuation of Obama and Hillary's shameful war on Syria and Yemen.

One of the nuggets I picked up over lunch-time reading is that the total percentage of the electorate that thinks Trump ought to be impeached, is a greater number than those that think he's doing a good job.

It's not a matter of policies. If for instance Pence became President, then his policies would presumably be very conservative and objectionable on political grounds. The problem with Trump is that he is completely incapable of the job he's been elected to. It's a different kind of problem.

One of the nuggets I picked up over lunch-time reading is that the total percentage of the electorate that thinks Trump ought to be impeached, is a greater number than those that think he's doing a good job.

This is all irrelevant since we don't impeach presidents on popular opinions.

It's not a matter of policies. If for instance Pence became President, then his policies would presumably be very conservative and objectionable on political grounds. The problem with Trump is that he is completely incapable of the job he's been elected to. It's a different kind of problem.

Of course it's a matter of policies. Those are what actually hurt people and those are what we can fight...even if Pence takes over. If you don't think those harmful policies are the problem, you're no better than a Trumpy who just doesn't like Trump personally, since you're apparently fine with those policies as long as they're done capably. Unreal.

since you're apparently fine with those policies as long as they're done capably. Unreal. — Thanatos Sand

There are two problems - yes, his policies are dreadful, particularly concerning climate policy and environment protection. But his general incompetence, inability to tell the truth and narcissism are another kind of problem altogether. I get that there are many mendacious politicians, and that W was a menace to world peace, and that Reagan was a dimwit. I know all that. But Trump is a whole other level of awful.

No he's not a whole other level of awful:

1. George W. Bush sent thousands of Americans to die in an Iraq War (he knew was bogus) that left millions of Iraqis dead, and he signed off on the torture of thousands more of Iraqis. That's downright inhuman and evil

2. Ronald Reagan spent 8 years destroying the many New Deal social programs from Welfare, to Medicare, to Social Security, to public education, and he started a heinous "war on drugs" that left millions of non-violent offenders in prison, and he stopped AIDS research because he considered it a Gay disease.

Sorry, Trump sucks, but he hasn't done anything like those two's horrors yet.

That's because his malevolence is restrained by his incompetence; and, he hasn't been there as long yet.

That's your subjective opinion--about his malevolence, not his incompetence--that doesn't counter anything I said. When he actually matches the horrors of Dubya and Reagan, then we can put him up with them.

your subjective opinion- — Thanatos Sand

Yeah, me along with several billion other people.And let's hope that he doesn't.