Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
A well regarded journalist citing real research...that is a "load?"
So that's all it takes? Being well regarded by some makes your opinions golden? No chance, if you're well regarded by some, that you're full of it? You're such an elitist. No wonder you're a Progressive.
It's a load because the "real" research he cites didn't mention Trump. It was not about Trump. It was various research articles why people in general, persist in misjudgments. And it can so easily be applied to just about any political campaign--and applied very much so to Hillary's campaigns, political or otherwise, from her unethical involvement in the Nixon impeachment, through Whitewater, Travelgate, futures shadiness, various other Whitehouse scandals while First Lady, covering for Bill's misadventures with the narrative of a vast right wing conspiracy, Benghazi, the emails, Clinton foundation controversy. Your well regarded journalist could easily have changed the title of his article "Why facts don't matter to Hillary's supporters."
Your well regarded journalist could have equally rewritten his "When critics challenge false assertions — say, Trump’s claim that thousands of Muslims cheered in New Jersey when the twin towers fell on Sept. 11, 2001 — their refutations can threaten people, rather than convince them" . . . he could have rewritten that by replacing Trump's claim with various untrue Hillary claims. Would work just as well.
And many of Trump's comments HAVE been deliberately misrepresented (falsely "interpreted)--for example those that have been discredited on this forum.
My own empirical evidence certainly seems to back up the findings.
That's an even bigger load.
That's scary. I don't understand the Supreme Court argument at all. The guy is a Dem most of his life, loved the Clinton's and suddenly in the span of a few years takes Jesus as his savior and you think that's an indicator of predictability on his picks...makes no sense.
Wasn't Hillary originally a Republican? You also don't understand that quite often there is a spontaneous taking of Jesus as savior by someone who has led a long life of dissolution, or of being a Democrat.
I suspect that you don't understand the Supreme Court argument because you don't want to. It is not at all difficult to understand. When I said that I supported Trump because I knew what Hillary would do or what kind of Judges Hillary would nominate--something to that effect--but I didn't know what Trump would do, you responded with "I can't believe you said that."--or something to that effect. It's like what a talk radio host posed with having to make the choice of opening two doors--one labeled savage, man-eating tiger, the other labeled possibly a savage man-eating tiger or possibly a harmless kitty. (Inexactly quoted from memory). Which door would you open?
Actually it isn't even that drastic a choice. You choose to believe some things that Trump says, or believe that some things he has done, are the true Trump. Other things you discount because you don't Trust him. That seems to be a contradiction . . . but no matter. It is to be expected that you will only profess that which can be considered "bad" about him because you support Hillary.
It's not about predictability. It's about possibility. Is that difficult to understand?
That seems to be your go-to these days, that it's all the same. Demographics don't back up your statement...
|
No, I didn't say it's ALL the same. I said the article, like so many that you cite, is a load. I've explained why in the above. And I have said previously that this election is not about character. Neither candidate can rightly claim to be, shall we say, impeccable. We have had many Presidents in the past who would not, today, be considered honorable, but who were deemed by historians to be great because of what they did in office. I would not agree what some did was great, I would even say it was destructive. But historians are just as biased as the rest of us. The historians deemed men, who would not be "well regarded" in terms of their character, great because of the consequences resulting from their election.
This election is not about character. It is about consequences.
You agree with Progressive style government. I assume you want a continuance and growth of the administrative State. That you agree with expanding the scope of government power. Ultimately, with a "benevolent" State that cannot be hindered from governing in any manner it chooses. Hillary is for you, in spite of what you consider negligible human faults, the ideal, self-professed, Progressive with a supposedly tremendous resume who will continue that "trajectory" of government growth. Because, after all, we are a product of history, and for a Progressive history is intrinsically and inevitably constant progress. But that natural historical progress must be shepherded and protected by expert administrators who constantly organize society in a way that is consonant with history. Ordinary people left to their own devices create a fustercluck.
I don't agree with that style of government. I believe that we are not a product of history, but that history is a product of our actions and beliefs. And that it has upheavals and reverses as well as improvements due to human endeavors. We create history, it doesn't create us. Our constitutional system of government was not historically inevitable. It was consciously created, and is still among the most advanced systems which promote individual freedom and responsibility. I believe that centralized systems such as the various forms of Socialism, including Progressivism, are semi-advanced forms of control over individuals which replace old monarchs and religions with more modern forms of dictatorial control.
I would open the door that might still allow us guarantees against government intrusion and control in every aspect of our lives. And, yes, the Supreme Court appointments will have a lot to say about that.
BTW, if you and others on the forum continue to criticize Trump, that will be an indication that you don't believe the article you posted here.