Despite the detractors, Trump doing well

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 09:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure you did. Then you changed objective to "something you could not deny giving him credit for". Seems like an impossible criteria to achieve if you refuse to give him credit for anything. As I said, you look in the mirror and think you're being open-minded. 

I have noticed you haven't spoken on the Syria retaliation yet: Does that meet your standard of "objective"?

No, I didn't. You're reading more into that post then is there. And I didn't change the criteria. Objective would be that it would be seen as an improvement without any sort of bias involved. Since I was the one talking about it, I was referring to myself because if it were objective then I would be unable to deny him credit. Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

I thought I had covered the Syria thing earlier, though maybe not. Whether that was good or bad is subjective, not objective. Not just by my criteria, but by definition.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a part of TPP can be good or bad depending on your economic viewpoint. This is why that is a subjective thing. For free-market conservatives and neo-liberals, forming those free-trade agreements is a good thing economically. We haven't seen any data showing a measurable impact on our economy from not being a part of the TPP either way. So we lack any objective measure to say whether it was good or bad.

You're right, though, that I could find lots of ways to not give him credit for a great many things. This is why my request was for something objective, because something objective would mean that I would be unable to not give him credit. Subjective things can go either way, and in multiple ways quite often. For instance, the TPP situation is one in which I could have said that he gets no credit for pulling out of those negotiations because Clinton would have done the same were she elected based on what she said, and there is a great possibility that the agreement would not have passed muster for congressional approval. So him doing it wasn't really a big deal.

What I will give him credit for with the TPP thing, though, is that it is one populist policy that he actually held to. He campaigned with a populist message and then abandoned those he gained with that message almost immediately. But not on the TPP thing.

(07-04-2018, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I consider being objective as not being influenced by personal feelings (bias); so that's where I "went there."

In your definition would objective be changing the name of Mt McKinley? Outside of that I have no idea what you are looking for. Because it seems that you can point to all the good things but they don't count as "objective." 

You, Matt and others can assert you are being objective (my definition) by asserting he hasn't done anything good for the country in his 18 months in office. Who knows, maybe you are, but in my opinion, it's a viewpoint seeded in bias.

(07-04-2018, 09:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I didn't. You're reading more into that post then is there. And I didn't change the criteria. Objective would be that it would be seen as an improvement without any sort of bias involved. Since I was the one talking about it, I was referring to myself because if it were objective then I would be unable to deny him credit. Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

I thought I had covered the Syria thing earlier, though maybe not. Whether that was good or bad is subjective, not objective. Not just by my criteria, but by definition.

Yep. I'm done putting words "in your mouth". Have a good remainder of the 4th and keep that open mind

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a part of TPP can be good or bad depending on your economic viewpoint. This is why that is a subjective thing. For free-market conservatives and neo-liberals, forming those free-trade agreements is a good thing economically. We haven't seen any data showing a measurable impact on our economy from not being a part of the TPP either way. So we lack any objective measure to say whether it was good or bad.

You're right, though, that I could find lots of ways to not give him credit for a great many things. This is why my request was for something objective, because something objective would mean that I would be unable to not give him credit. Subjective things can go either way, and in multiple ways quite often. For instance, the TPP situation is one in which I could have said that he gets no credit for pulling out of those negotiations because Clinton would have done the same were she elected based on what she said, and there is a great possibility that the agreement would not have passed muster for congressional approval. So him doing it wasn't really a big deal.

What I will give him credit for with the TPP thing, though, is that it is one populist policy that he actually held to. He campaigned with a populist message and then abandoned those he gained with that message almost immediately. But not on the TPP thing.

(07-04-2018, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I consider being objective as not being influenced by personal feelings (bias); so that's where I "went there."

In your definition would objective be changing the name of Mt McKinley? Outside of that I have no idea what you are looking for. Because it seems that you can point to all the good things but they don't count as "objective." 

You, Matt and others can assert you are being objective (my definition) by asserting he hasn't done anything good for the country in his 18 months in office. Who knows, maybe you are, but in my opinion, it's a viewpoint seeded in bias.

(07-04-2018, 09:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I didn't. You're reading more into that post then is there. And I didn't change the criteria. Objective would be that it would be seen as an improvement without any sort of bias involved. Since I was the one talking about it, I was referring to myself because if it were objective then I would be unable to deny him credit. Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

I thought I had covered the Syria thing earlier, though maybe not. Whether that was good or bad is subjective, not objective. Not just by my criteria, but by definition.

Yep. I'm done putting words "in your mouth". Have a good remainder of the 4th and keep that open mind

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 09:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. I'm done putting words "in your mouth". Have a good remainder of the 4th and keep that open mind

I am aware of that post, which is why I said we didn't have different definitions. Of course, that really didn't counter what I said. But you do the same.

[hollodero]

(07-04-2018, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I consider being objective as not being influenced by personal feelings (bias); so that's where I "went there."

I think that's a necessity for being objective, but it's not the only criteria. Not only do I need to be unbiased, I also need to know about the facts to be objective, at least that's how I use that word.
So, besides the fact that my refusal of TPP is far from being without feelings, it is certainly not based solely on facts and evidence. I think things I wouldn't like could happen with TPP, I could argue the case and make maybe some sense doing so, but I'd not dare saying that being against TPP is objectively the right call. I'm in no place to claim that kind of certainty. And that really has nothing to do with Trump.

(07-04-2018, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In your definition would objective be changing the name of Mt McKinley? Outside of that I have no idea what you are looking for. Because it seems that you can point to all the good things but they don't count as "objective." 

Neither do many of the bad things. That's kind of the point. It's a difference in definition.
E.g. I still think the tax cuts are amazingly awful, but I'd equally not dare saying that this is objectively true. I think fearing the exploding deficit is a valid point, or seeing the benefits go to the richest five percent or stuff like that, but that's the kind of things I got. Far too little to give an "objective" opinion. I sure still have one, as do most of us. Reached by a mixture of facts, articles, words from other people, own thoughts, own fears and feelings and prejudices and a whole bunch of stuff.

With Mt. McKinley, an objective statement would be "US citizens call this mountain Mt McKinley". Also where it's located, height, rocks etc. etc. If I had polling, I could say pretty much objectively whether Americans like the name or not. If asked if it should be renamed Mt. Trump, I'd have a strongly worded answer, but not an objective one.

[GMDino]

Take one down...pass it around...

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 09:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think that's a necessity for being objective, but it's not the only criteria. Not only do I need to be unbiased, I also need to know about the facts to be objective, at least that's how I use that word.
So, besides the fact that my refusal of TPP is far from being without feelings, it is certainly not based solely on facts and evidence. I think things I wouldn't like could happen with TPP, I could argue the case and make maybe some sense doing so, but I'd not dare saying that being against TPP is objectively the right call. I'm in no place to claim that kind of certainty. And that really has nothing to do with Trump.



Neither do many of the bad things. That's kind of the point. It's a difference in definition.
E.g. I still think the tax cuts are amazingly awful, but I'd equally not dare saying that this is objectively true. I think fearing the exploding deficit is a valid point, or seeing the benefits go to the richest five percent or stuff like that, but that's the kind of things I got. Far too little to give an "objective" opinion. I sure still have one, as do most of us. Reached by a mixture of facts, articles, words from other people, own thoughts, own fears and feelings and prejudices and a whole bunch of stuff.

With Mt. McKinley, an objective statement would be "US citizens call this mountain Mt McKinley". Also where it's located, height, rocks etc. etc. If I had polling, I could say pretty much objectively whether Americans like the name or not. If asked if it should be renamed Mt. Trump, I'd have a strongly worded answer, but not an objective one.

I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 09:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think that's a necessity for being objective, but it's not the only criteria. Not only do I need to be unbiased, I also need to know about the facts to be objective, at least that's how I use that word.
So, besides the fact that my refusal of TPP is far from being without feelings, it is certainly not based solely on facts and evidence. I think things I wouldn't like could happen with TPP, I could argue the case and make maybe some sense doing so, but I'd not dare saying that being against TPP is objectively the right call. I'm in no place to claim that kind of certainty. And that really has nothing to do with Trump.



Neither do many of the bad things. That's kind of the point. It's a difference in definition.
E.g. I still think the tax cuts are amazingly awful, but I'd equally not dare saying that this is objectively true. I think fearing the exploding deficit is a valid point, or seeing the benefits go to the richest five percent or stuff like that, but that's the kind of things I got. Far too little to give an "objective" opinion. I sure still have one, as do most of us. Reached by a mixture of facts, articles, words from other people, own thoughts, own fears and feelings and prejudices and a whole bunch of stuff.

With Mt. McKinley, an objective statement would be "US citizens call this mountain Mt McKinley". Also where it's located, height, rocks etc. etc. If I had polling, I could say pretty much objectively whether Americans like the name or not. If asked if it should be renamed Mt. Trump, I'd have a strongly worded answer, but not an objective one.

I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 09:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think that's a necessity for being objective, but it's not the only criteria. Not only do I need to be unbiased, I also need to know about the facts to be objective, at least that's how I use that word.
So, besides the fact that my refusal of TPP is far from being without feelings, it is certainly not based solely on facts and evidence. I think things I wouldn't like could happen with TPP, I could argue the case and make maybe some sense doing so, but I'd not dare saying that being against TPP is objectively the right call. I'm in no place to claim that kind of certainty. And that really has nothing to do with Trump.



Neither do many of the bad things. That's kind of the point. It's a difference in definition.
E.g. I still think the tax cuts are amazingly awful, but I'd equally not dare saying that this is objectively true. I think fearing the exploding deficit is a valid point, or seeing the benefits go to the richest five percent or stuff like that, but that's the kind of things I got. Far too little to give an "objective" opinion. I sure still have one, as do most of us. Reached by a mixture of facts, articles, words from other people, own thoughts, own fears and feelings and prejudices and a whole bunch of stuff.

With Mt. McKinley, an objective statement would be "US citizens call this mountain Mt McKinley". Also where it's located, height, rocks etc. etc. If I had polling, I could say pretty much objectively whether Americans like the name or not. If asked if it should be renamed Mt. Trump, I'd have a strongly worded answer, but not an objective one.

I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

[GMDino]

(07-04-2018, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

(07-04-2018, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

(07-04-2018, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 10:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Something has happened to my account or someone is playing around. For instance this post was posted 3 times. I posted a thread today in JN and it got repeated. You can look in this very forum and see my thread about pulling bases out of Germany got duplicated.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-04-2018, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

There are people that argue the action was not a good one because the president did not have the authority to take it without congressional approval. That is just one angle the attack can be viewed in a negative way.

Whether something is good or bad is always going to be subjective. This was kind of my point before we started getting into the minutae. Almost everything done by the administration can be seen, legitimately, as good or bad. It's an opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 10:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Something has happened to my account or someone is playing around. For instance this post was posted 3 times. I posted a thread today in JN and it got repeated. You can look in this very forum and see my thread about pulling bases out of Germany got duplicated.  

[GMDino]

(07-04-2018, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Something has happened to my account or someone is playing around. For instance this post was posted 3 times. I posted a thread today in JN and it got repeated. You can look in this very forum and see my thread about pulling bases out of Germany got duplicated.  

Yeah I thought you just hit post too quick.  My mouse was acting up and doing that and double posting.  But yours were two-three minutes apart.  It was weird.

[hollodero]

(07-04-2018, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with.

I spent quite a lot of words to give you my definition. It's not that one. I gave you my reasoning, and so did Bels. Whether you find sense in those words or just forcibly find what you wanted to find in the first place is up to you.

(07-04-2018, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?

I already gave him that one just before. I said I think it's something good Trump did, as was leaving TPP, why would you ask for more than that? As I tried to make you understand, that's all I can give on most topics, independently from Trump, without being presumptuous. I consider your points valid, but I know too little detail on both topics to elevate my opinion to some kind of objective truth.

To conclude with a similarly hyperbolic question, is that too little acknowledgement? Should I also demand he'd get the nobel prize for those mind-blowing things?

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 10:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Something has happened to my account or someone is playing around. For instance this post was posted 3 times. I posted a thread today in JN and it got repeated. You can look in this very forum and see my thread about pulling bases out of Germany got duplicated.  

[Dill]

(07-04-2018, 10:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are people that argue the action was not a good one because the president did not have the authority to take it without congressional approval. That is just one angle the attack can be viewed in a negative way.

Whether something is good or bad is always going to be subjective. This was kind of my point before we started getting into the minutae. Almost everything done by the administration can be seen, legitimately, as good or bad. It's an opinion.

(07-04-2018, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think objective has morphed into: Something without bias and something I agree with. For instance I think the retaliation against Syria was objective (especially if you're in the camp of Trump and Russian collusion). It was a proactive move and showed the world we were not to be trifled with. What other kind of evidence could you look for? It also cured cancer?  

In discussions like this, which are really about basic epistemology, it is maybe a good thing to start out by clarifying the difference between judgments of fact and judgments of value, and the different kinds and degrees of inference which can be made from each. It is never a "fact" that some action is good or bad. That is ALWAYS a value judgment and based upon values, even it is about a "fact." That it is in this sense "subjective" (not an empirical determination) does not at all mean that it is "simply opinion" or varies randomly from individual bias to individual bias.

Acknowledging this helps to prevent confusion between logically valid value judgments on the one hand, and plain old "subjectivism" on the other, or reduction of policy issues to "facts" vs "opinions"--the latter being dismissive and often obscuring the important difference between good and bad judgment, informed and uninformed reasoning. Further, facts never just present themselves; they always emerge in some kind of framework that reflects our interests and knowledge, making some otherwise ignored feature of the world around us salient. In that sense they are subjective from the get go. I may see exactly the same light, grey and dark splotches on an ex-ray as a cancer researcher, yet he may see any number of "facts" in them that I do not, because of how his scientific vision already frames what he sees. That "framing" is in the researcher's head as much as in the splotches. And it is not the less "objective" for that. Facts always exist in relation to some framework of knowledge, scientific or otherwise.

Evaluating the "splotches" of Trump's policies and behavior is not all that different in principle from evaluating the ex-ray. What sort of knowledge-framing makes policy facts apparent, or not? Even when people agree on the facts, like Trump ordered a Syria strike on such and such a date and it occurred, there are other facts or "factors" one has to take into account before one can decide it was good or bad or even successful. 

Policy actions, especially foreign policy actions, ought to be aligning with clearly defined goals and values--in this case, foreign policy goals for the Middle East which should be part of a larger set of policy goals and American values.  Whether and the degree to which such actions can be shown both to align with values and achieve goals is how we "objectively" measure such policy. That is a framework which produces the relevant "facts."

Hollo makes an excellent point in asserting that what we call "objective" ought to be connected in some way to facts, to knowledge of facts; that assertion is itself a "value," an ethical standard, a rule for judging. What Trump's Syria strikes "showed the world" can never be simply assumed, and any claims about that ought to take into account what "the world" actually says about a given strike, how it actually responds.  To most Europeans, a  Trump-style Syria strike may only mean the US leader is erratic. And as Xi, Putin and Kim have shown the world, the US can indeed be trifled with.  When set in a proper analytic framework which compares the claimed criteria policy goals for striking Syria with other situations that also, or better, meet the criteria but are ignored, the "fact" of the strike can appear "subjectivist" and erratic in terms of motivation. That may not be good if we want consistent, rational foreign policy. The question Trump's actions raise, of course, is whether that is what his administration cares about.  

That so many in the foreign policy establishment find so many of Trump's policies bad is not prima facie evidence of their biased judgment or "hatred."  As if every president automatically has both good and bad policies in roughly equal amounts and "bias" appears in always only noting the bad.  So "naming a good thing Trump did" is not really a step in any objective analysis of Trump's policies nor likely to settle questions of "bias." It is an effort to assess the fairness of Trump criticism on the volume of that criticism, rather than referring it to Trump's actual behavior and policy.  It "de-objectifies" evaluation in search of "fairness" in proportion, regardless of the facts.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2018, 10:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are people that argue the action was not a good one because the president did not have the authority to take it without congressional approval. That is just one angle the attack can be viewed in a negative way.

Whether something is good or bad is always going to be subjective. This was kind of my point before we started getting into the minutae. Almost everything done by the administration can be seen, legitimately, as good or bad. It's an opinion.

And that's why I said it's going to be impossible to provide you with an example that meets your criteria and to be honest although it's a term folks hate to use it is a symptom of TDS (refusal to give credit where due) the other symptom is to blame him for everything that is wrong.

He worked with a coalition of France and England to retaliate against a country that used chemical gas against its own citizens and that country is a strong allies of the country that "helped" him win the election.  One has to dig, really, really deep to find fault in that; perhaps to the point of not viewing the situation rationally.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 10:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And that's why I said it's going to be impossible to provide you with an example that meets your criteria and to be honest although it's a term folks hate to use it is a symptom of TDS (refusal to give credit where due) the other symptom is to blame him for everything that is wrong.

He worked with a coalition of France and England to retaliate against a country that used chemical gas against its own citizens and that country is a strong allies of the country that "helped" him win the election.  One has to dig, really, really deep to find fault in that; perhaps to the point of not viewing the situation rationally.  

Not at all, and I gave a perfect example of a fault that is rational and valid and is on the surface. There can be more than one rational point of view or opinion. Dismissing that is, in and of itself, irrational.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 11:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not at all, and I gave a perfect example of a fault that is rational and valid and is on the surface. There can be more than one rational point of view or opinion. Dismissing that is, in and of itself, irrational.

So to make sure I am clear and do not put words in your mouth: You do not give him credit for forming a coalition with our allies and retaliating against a country that had gassed its citizens? 

I ask because your original post said point to something objective and you would give him credit. Seems you have changed "you" to "some people".