[jogs]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-February-03, 18:50, said:

Go outside......free
Get laid........hopefully free
Go to a movie.....$12 + popcorn
Take Barney Google's advice?.......pointless

Movies are $17 in San Francisco.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The latest to enter the fray is Colin Kahl, a Georgetown University professor who served as a national security official under Obama. Angered by the current administration’s attempts to blame Obama for the first counterterrorism misstep to occur on Trump’s watch — a botched Jan. 29 raid in Yemen that left one American commando dead — Kahl on Thursday fired off a flurry of tweets explaining that Obama neither planned nor approved the mission and that any reports saying otherwise were “totally false.”

“Trump and his team owns the process and the ultimate decision — and the consequences,” Kahl snapped.

Unlucky for Trump that others know how to tweet, too.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-04, 17:04, said:

In the new alt-right reality, if you don't give "alternative facts" equal time you are a bigot or worse, fake news. And to my amazement and consternation, the Trump legion continues its support and glee at turmoil and strife.

Fact-checkings often show that neither side is "perfect". Proposition and exposition of ideas and procedures leads to the improvement and evolution of any system. A first step is to accept our imperfections and not turn a deaf ear to others. Even if one side is "wrong" (and that is quite often as subjective as objective) you can never correct someone as well as they can correct themselves. A kind of version of the golden rule, wouldn't you say?

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 11:46, said:

But decency comes after removal from office of the current tenants.

What current tenants? All of them, Republican and Democrat alike? All levels, down to the village?

Trump's been in office for what, two weeks? Perhaps calls for his "removal" (by what means?) are a bit premature.

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-04, 16:58, said:

..How is it censorship to call a lie a lie or to renounce hatred? You seem to think that a free press should support crakpots and hate-mongers, where I think it is part of the role of a free press to make sure the populace understands precisely how wrong such people are.

Censorship can start with labelling

• Ideas that you hate as "hatred" and
• Their proponents as "liars" or worse.

Your adversaries probably hold similar views about you.

Your name-calling

• Delights the clique already converted to your view but
• Polarises positions.
• Angers your opponents, especially if name-calling is one-sided and unmoderated.
• Causes the undecided to worry that you have run out of genuine argument.
• Raises sympathy among the undecided for your opponents.
• Alienates those who enjoy polite debate.

A more effective persuasive tactic is to rely on logical counter-argument based on demonstrable facts. The more ridiculous your opponent's position, the more you should encourage its exposure, and the easier and quicker your refutation should be. If you fear that the naive and gullible masses might be duped by your opponent's empty rhetoric, perhaps you need to clarifyi your own arguments. Remember that you rate yourself as less stupid, idiotic, etc than others).

You should also allow for the possibility that both sides are wrong. Some outsiders rate the US presidential candidates deeply flawed and you must now make the best you can of a bad job

If you have a religious conviction that you are right and simply want to eliminate dissent, then censorship and martyrdom make more sense. But...

Oliver Cromwell, addressing the Synod of the Church of Scotland, on 5-Aug 1650 said:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

[Al_U_Card]

 blackshoe, on 2017-February-04, 19:38, said:

What current tenants? All of them, Republican and Democrat alike? All levels, down to the village?

Trump's been in office for what, two weeks? Perhaps calls for his "removal" (by what means?) are a bit premature.

Intolerance, as regards the forging of a more perfect union, is out of place. If Nixon (almost) and Clinton could be up for impeachment then if Trump's actions are even more egregious, the procedures in place can be enacted. If not, then it will have to be by ballot boxes, as per usual.

[y66]

From Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying by Charles Sykes (@SykesCharlie), a former conservative talk-show host in Wisconsin and author of the forthcoming “How the Right Lost Its Mind.”

Quote

All administrations lie, but what we are seeing here is an attack on credibility itself.

The Russian dissident and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov drew upon long familiarity with that process when he tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

Mr. Kasparov grasps that the real threat is not merely that a large number of Americans have become accustomed to rejecting factual information, or even that they have become habituated to believing hoaxes. The real danger is that, inundated with “alternative facts,” many voters will simply shrug, asking, “What is truth?” — and not wait for an answer.

In that world, the leader becomes the only reliable source of truth; a familiar phenomenon in an authoritarian state, but a radical departure from the norms of a democratic society. The battle over truth is now central to our politics.

This may explain one of the more revealing moments from after the election, when one of Mr. Trump’s campaign surrogates, Scottie Nell Hughes, was asked to defend the clearly false statement by Mr. Trump that millions of votes had been cast illegally. She answered by explaining that everybody now had their own way of interpreting whether a fact was true or not.

“There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts,” she declared. Among “a large part of the population” what Mr. Trump said was the truth.

“When he says that millions of people illegally voted,” she said, his supporters believe him — and “people believe they have facts to back that up.”

Or as George Orwell said: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” But Ms. Hughes’s comment was perhaps unintentionally insightful. Mr. Trump and company seem to be betting that much of the electorate will not care if the president tells demonstrable lies, and will pick and choose whatever “alternative facts” confirm their views.

The next few years will be a test of that thesis.

In the meantime, we must recognize the magnitude of the challenge. If we want to restore respect for facts and break through the intellectual ghettos on both the right and left, the mainstream media will have to be aggressive without being hysterical and adversarial without being unduly oppositional.

Perhaps just as important, it will be incumbent on conservative media outlets to push back as well. Conservatism should be a reality-based philosophy, and the movement will be better off if it recognizes that facts really do matter. There may be short-term advantages to running headlines about millions of illegal immigrants voting or secret United Nations plots to steal your guns, but the longer the right enables such fabrications, the weaker it will be in the long run. As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors.

The conservative media ecosystem — like the rest of us — has to recognize how critical, but also how fragile, credibility is in the Orwellian age of Donald Trump.

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2017-February-04, 14:07, said:

I am completely clueless about this, but maybe American lawyers (mikeh?) have an answer:

Isn't Trump's language contempt for the court? Or does that only count for proceedings in the court room? Or is the POTUS immune for such things? (I would think that the Trias Politica proscribes that the POTUS should not be immune for these things.)

Rik

I am most definitely not an American.

[Trinidad]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-04, 23:33, said:

I am most definitely not an American.

I was aware that you are not from the USA, but I wasn't aware that you considered yourself "not American".

Rik

[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2017-February-04, 20:31, said:

Censorship can start with labelling

Censorship in this context is where the press is not allowed to provide a specific viewpoint for some reason. But this is not what we are talking about here. This discussion is about a free press that chooses not to provide a specific viewpoint because that point of view is so extreme or ridiculous as not to be worth offering. Instead, the press reports on the issues showing just why the viewpoint is a lie/based on hatred/impossible/stupid/etc* (* delete as appropriate). In AIU's world, such a free press is worthless, in mine it is doing its job. True censorship would bring a completely different dynamic into play but then we are not really talking about a free press any more so the discussion has to go in a somewhat different direction.

[PassedOut]

Yes, a free press that sees that its responsibility is to provide accurate, factual information (even if it sometimes fails) is invaluable. That leaves it open for those who use the freedom irresponsibly, but it's possible to tell the difference. One clue is how an organization reacts when a published piece is found to be inaccurate.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:30, said:

Censorship in this context is where the press is not allowed to provide a specific viewpoint for some reason. But this is not what we are talking about here. This discussion is about a free press that chooses not to provide a specific viewpoint because that point of view is so extreme or ridiculous as not to be worth offering. Instead, the press reports on the issues showing just why the viewpoint is a lie/based on hatred/impossible/stupid/etc* (* delete as appropriate). In AIU's world, such a free press is worthless, in mine it is doing its job. True censorship would bring a completely different dynamic into play but then we are not really talking about a free press any more so the discussion has to go in a somewhat different direction.

They are also free to present their bias and preference as they see fit and the success of their enterprise determines their longevity if not their veracity.
The desire to ensure that only correct (as one may perceive it) information is presented, is unfortunate.
My world, like it or not, is your world. My view is not yours, as it should be. Presuming to know my worldview is to assume that you include my experience within your own. Patently absurd. Respect for the rights of others includes the respect of the difference between those views as they provide a greater perspective and when judiciously regarded, are very useful to further understanding and agreement.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2017-February-04, 19:38, said:

What current tenants? All of them, Republican and Democrat alike? All levels, down to the village?

Trump's been in office for what, two weeks? Perhaps calls for his "removal" (by what means?) are a bit premature.

Each day this con-man occupies the WH is a loss for the U.S. When he should be removed from office depends on how much you are willing to lose.

[Winstonm]

 nige1, on 2017-February-04, 20:31, said:

Censorship can start with labelling

• Ideas that you hate as "hatred" and
• Their proponents as "liars" or worse.

Your adversaries probably hold similar views about you.

In other words, what Trump is doing concerning the "media".

Your name-calling

• Delights the clique already converted to your view but
• Polarises positions.
• Angers your opponents, especially if name-calling is one-sided and unmoderated.
• Causes the undecided to worry that you have run out of genuine argument.
• Raises sympathy among the undecided for your opponents.
• Alienates those who enjoy polite debate.

A more effective persuasive tactic is to rely on logical counter-argument based on demonstrable facts. The more ridiculous your opponent's position, the more you should encourage its exposure, and the easier and quicker your refutation should be. If you fear that the naive and gullible masses might be duped by your opponent's empty rhetoric, perhaps you need to clarifyi your own arguments. Remember that you rate yourself as less stupid, idiotic, etc than others).

In other words, what Trump is doing with everyone who disagrees with him.

You should also allow for the possibility that both sides are wrong. Some outsiders rate the US presidential candidates deeply flawed and you must now make the best you can of a bad job.

Even then, all discussion must start with facts. If one side wants to make up non-facts and use them as facts, there can be no honest discussion of anything except the lies and motivations for lying.


If you have a religious conviction that you are right and simply want to eliminate dissent, then censorship and martyrdom make more sense. But...

A malignant narcissist is not psychologically capable of entertaining thoughts of being wrong.

So, assuming that in the WH is a man who is actively trying to censor the media, attacks and characterizes all who disagree with him as enemies, who consistently lies to support his views and has others lie for him, and who is psychologically incapable of acting or thinking in any manner that doesn't reward his ego, is normal disagreement and logical argument going to stop the damage he is doing?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-05, 10:22, said:

So, assuming that in the WH is a man who is actively trying to censor the media, attacks and characterizes all who disagree with him as enemies, who consistently lies to support his views and has others lie for him, and who is psychologically incapable of acting or thinking in any manner that doesn't reward his ego, is normal disagreement and logical argument going to stop the damage he is doing?

The problem in a nutshell: Democracy is based on the assumption that the answer to this question is yes. The reality is that the answer might be no.

A major related sub-problem: Many of the liberal persuasion believe, at the gut level, that those who disagree with their vision for the country are racist sexist morons or other undesirables. Some are, some aren't. Early in the campaign, early in the primary campaign, I suggested that this was not the best way to get votes. The general reaction was along the lines of "Well, they are bigoted morons, so we have to call them bigoted morons". And so we now have Trump. I am not suggesting concealing beliefs. I am suggesting that we allow for the possibility that some who think as a conservative and vote Republican might actually be intelligent decent people who would respond well to rational discussion. The thing is, if everyone who voted R is a bigoted moron then the country is lost no matter what we do, so maybe we should at least try to go forward with some hope.

Probably irrelevant: Last night I saw Catch me if you can. The "hero" is a young con man and at his engagement party while the police are closing in he explains to his fiancee, a young nurse he met while pretending to be a doctor, that he is not a doctor, nor is he a lawyer as he is currently pretending, he is not 28 rather he is 17, he ran away from home and did not finish high school, and he is not Lutheran. She says "You aren't Lutheran?".
Morale: You don't know what is important to someone unless you ask and listen.
Yes, I expect Spielberg made that part up.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-February-05, 12:16, said:

The problem in a nutshell: Democracy is based on the assumption that the answer to this question is yes. The reality is that the answer might be no.

A major related sub-problem: Many of the liberal persuasion believe, at the gut level, that those who disagree with their vision for the country are racist sexist morons or other undesirables. Some are, some aren't. Early in the campaign, early in the primary campaign, I suggested that this was not the best way to get votes. The general reaction was along the lines of "Well, they are bigoted morons, so we have to call them bigoted morons". And so we now have Trump. I am not suggesting concealing beliefs. I am suggesting that we allow for the possibility that some who think as a conservative and vote Republican might actually be intelligent decent people who would respond well to rational discussion. The thing is, if everyone who voted R is a bigoted moron then the country is lost no matter what we do, so maybe we should at least try to go forward with some hope.

Probably irrelevant: Last night I saw Catch me if you can. The "hero" is a young con man and at his engagement party while the police are closing in he explains to his fiancee, a young nurse he met while pretending to be a doctor, that he is not a doctor, nor is he a lawyer as he is currently pretending, he is not 28 rather he is 17, he ran away from home and did not finish high school, and he is not Lutheran. She says "You aren't Lutheran?".
Morale: You don't know what is important to someone unless you ask and listen.
Yes, I expect Spielberg made that part up.

I know I've always valued the ideas expressed by conservatives like PassedOut - not so much the ideas of Sean Hannity. Why is that? PassedOut always gives the impression that he is willing to alter his views as facts dictate; Hannity, on the other hand, gives the impression that he either ignores or vilifies facts in order to support his views.

How much graciousness one expresses has a lot to do with the nature of the person to whom you are speaking. I simply will not be gracious to David Duke.

In my view, what happened in this election cycle has more to do with emotions than brains - or better expressed, brains short-circuited by emotions.

We have to keep in mind that Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million. Still, that means that way too many people were fearful enough or hated the Clintons enough to give the reigns of power to a consummate con man.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-05, 13:46, said:

I know I've always valued the ideas expressed by conservatives like PassedOut - not so much the ideas of Sean Hannity. Why is that? PassedOut always gives the impression that he is willing to alter his views as facts dictate; Hannity, on the other hand, gives the impression that he either ignores or vilifies facts in order to support his views.

How much graciousness one expresses has a lot to do with the nature of the person to whom you are speaking. I simply will not be gracious to David Duke.

In my view, what happened in this election cycle has more to do with emotions than brains - or better expressed, brains short-circuited by emotions.

We have to keep in mind that Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million. Still, that means that way too many people were fearful enough or hated the Clintons enough to give the reigns of power to a consummate con man.

We probably agree that there is a pretty good sized gap, say about the size of the Grand Canyon, between PassedOut and Sean Hannity. Actually I take this on faith. When Trump was saying "Ask Hannity, ask HannityI was pretty sure this referred to someone called Sean Hannity who was either on talk radio or on Fox News or maybe both but I would hate to have my life depend on knowing anything about him beyond that.

I am now thinking of the nurse from Catch me as a useful metaphor (Metaphors be with you ---- Carrie Fisher). She reacts "You aren't Lutheran?". If she is told that is an idiotic reaction, that's the end of the conversation. But if this first reaction is accepted, she may well be open to then thinking about whether she really wants to marry this guy even if he does convert to her religion. Maybe I will recommend this movie to the Democratic leadership. Nah.

[mike777]

 Trinidad, on 2017-February-04, 14:07, said:

I am completely clueless about this, but maybe American lawyers (mikeh?) have an answer:

Isn't Trump's language contempt for the court? Or does that only count for proceedings in the court room? Or is the POTUS immune for such things? (I would think that the Trias Politica proscribes that the POTUS should not be immune for these things.)

Rik

contempt for the court is fine and legal. contempt of court is a bit different but most often is in court and when lawyers involved go against a specific court ruling such as a gag order. For the rest of us outside the room contempt of court is free speech though the President doing it brings into question the general trust in the judicial system.

To put it another way for those of us outside the room insulting the court, congress, president or King is legal and encouraged.

[mike777]

Regarding the Press the issue is often the bias they show in the editorial decisions they make in reporting the news or not reporting something. One recent example is Lemon on cnn comparing the recent firing to the Nixon firing, they are not morally or otherwise equivalent

In general they do a pretty darn good job in reporting what they want to report, the problem often comes in what they decide to leave out which can slant the report. Over the decades I can recall countless things in the press regarding finance stuff. The problem being what they leave out of the story really slants it.


I don't have a solution except to allow more news sites.

[Winstonm]

Quote

On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and his CBS news program, “See It Now,” examined Senator Joseph McCarthy's record and anti-communist methods.

The program is often remembered for these words:

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.'

Good night, and good luck."