Trump's Axios interview

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2020, 02:47 AM)Dill Wrote: Questioning or refuting a bad counterargument is not the same as "allowing no counter argument."[/qutoe]

Except that's not what you're doing.  You're making subjective statements and claiming they are objective.  You are labeling the points of others as "bad arguments" as if if your declaration automatically makes them so.

Quote:"Absolutists" who "brook no dissent" do not ask their opponents to clarify and offer more evidence for, or restate their points. And conversely, they don't opt out of dialogue when asked for evidence or to further explain their reasoning, or to demonstrate an understanding of their opponent's argument.

Except that's not what you're doing.  You're reiterating your opinion or my opinion.  The only difference is you're upholding your opinion as an inassailable fact.

Quote:Avoiding such ordinary challenges of civil debate--that's what absolutists do who brook no dissent. They state their conclusions, and if they're feeling generous they may restate them once more, but then that's that. 

I'll take "things that make you go hmm" for a thousand, Alex.

Quote:Your claims that Trumpism is dependent only on Trump's "presence" and that the Dem party poses a radical far left danger greater than four more years of Trump are at this point unsupportable. Their weakness has been laid out step by step, unanswered, in posts #45-46. Claiming I've made my point and you've made yours doesn't make this a "tie." 

Except they absolutely are supportable.  You just don't agree with it.  You have taken objective fact and drawn a conclusion.  I have done the same.  You think your position is superior, I find it fatuous.  You discount examples I have supplied out of hand and hold up your examples as paragons of truth.  As stated before we have been arguing about our opinions for several posts now and it serves no further purpose.  You think you've provided a superior argument and appear determined to continue until I fall to my knees in supplication.  It's not going to happen.  I disagree, completely, with your conclusion (especially as you still aren't actually addressing the point I'm making) and that's that.  No need for any further back and forth.  We respectfully disagree on this subject and that's the end of it.

(08-08-2020, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: Dill!  Stop asking people to clarify or defend what they say!  You must not understand "muh free speech"! 

All seriousness aside this thread was highlighting Trump's inability to think, speak or plan until it went of on.."but Biden" along with the usual semantic arguments (you said "people" instead of "biden supporters"!!!!11!!1!)

Its too funny.

Dill is doing fine without your help Dino.  He's a big boy.  

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:Your claims that Trumpism is dependent only on Trump's "presence" and that the Dem party poses a radical far left danger greater than four more years of Trump are at this point unsupportable. Their weakness has been laid out step by step, unanswered, in posts #45-46. Claiming I've made my point and you've made yours doesn't make this a "tie." 

Except they absolutely are supportable.  You just don't agree with it.  You have taken objective fact and drawn a conclusion.  I have done the same.  You think your position is superior, I find it fatuous.  You discount examples I have supplied out of hand and hold up your examples as paragons of truth.  As stated before we have been arguing about our opinions for several posts now and it serves no further purpose.  You think you've provided a superior argument and appear determined to continue until I fall to my knees in supplication.  It's not going to happen.  I disagree, completely, with your conclusion (especially as you still aren't actually addressing the point I'm making) and that

Then why don't you support them, instead of writing ALL arguments off as equally "opinions"?*

In which post did you go beyond a mere claim that Trumpism is only dependent upon Trump's presence?

The counter argument is that Trump's base wants what it wants independently of Trump, as I argued with multiple examples in posts #45-46. You could refute that counterargument by showing that the xenophobia and anti-globalism of the base were NOT there before Trump or offering some reason why they should disappear when he was gone and the alternative is once again "GOP normal." But you have not. Repeating "Because their support is only tied to his presence" just continues to beg the question.

I certainly have taken an "objective fact" and made an inference. More than one"objective fact" and more than one inference, in fact.  E.g.--

1. There is a "terrifying" far left minority element of the Dem party whose presidential nominee was trounced by Biden. That's a fact. And from it I conclude that the terrifying far left does not control or define the party. It is not what the bulk of voters chose.

You could refute this inference by showing that Biden did not win the Dem nomination, or only won by tiny margin, or that Dem voters didn't vote for the candidate they really wanted. Or that Biden is an AOC wolf in sheep's clothing None of which you have done.

Yet you conclude, to the contrary, that this terrifying "far left" is what the Dems are really all about, so much to fear that "gridlock" and another four years of Trump are reasonable alternatives. Warrant for this errant inference, though asked for, is never provided. It remains just a bald assertion. And that's why I "just don't agree."

2. There is a terrifying far right majority element of the Republican party whose presidential nominee trounced all his "normal" primary opponents.  Fact. The vast bulk of the Republican party--over 80%--still supports that nominee. Fact. The bulk also believe there is a deep state conspiracy to "get" Trump. This belief is also a fact.

From these facts I conclude that this majority does define and control the Republican party. And nothing in their voter behavior suggests any inclination to "revert to the GOP norm" if Trump loses, rather than believe their choice was subverted by the deep state.

Another version: There is a "GOP normal" faction of the Republican party which rejects Trump. Fact one. They are a minority of less than 15%. Fact two. Many of these will vote Dem or at least not Republican. Fact three. From which I conclude they neither control nor define the Republican party.

You would refute this position by showing that Trump didn't win his party's nomination, or didn't win by a huge majority, or that the majority who voted for him didn't vote for the candidate they really wanted, and that it does not really buy into deep state conspiracies against their man. Or why the minority "GOP normal" will suddenly re-attract angry Trump voters once Trump is no longer "present"--as opposed to raging against a deep state rigged election. None of which you have done.

But you don't conclude anything like that. No. Your response is that you "just don't agree," without providing the requested warrants.  And if I really were "not addressing [your] point," you wouldn't be refusing to restate it and demonstrating how I have missed it instead of just claiming I have and then turning tail.

So yes, I think I have provided a "superior argument," as would anyone who followed my step by step refutation of your "point" and your consequent disengagement. 20 posts back you could have just said "Well, I can't really support that point; I just feel it." Or you could have presented your ideas more tentatively: "Does this fly? Anyone see any holes?" I'd have been happy to let the whole issue go. But no, you had to double down and accuse me of missing the point and "absolutism", and now--high drama--you are neither going to address my counter argument nor "fall to your knees in supplication."  As if every option were available to you except continued, steady focus on your argument as an argument.

*I don't call inferences "opinions," as if all inferences were equally warranted guess work, equally well grounded. They are not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks the far left has become the norm.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/09/san-francisco-democrats-took-over-392613

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2020, 08:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks the far left has become the norm.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/09/san-francisco-democrats-took-over-392613

Eh, yes and no. I only skimmed the article, and I don't have a ton of time to really dig into why I say that, but the tl;dr is that what the author describes includes societal shifts that have made some of those ideas that once defined the far left to be mainstream, e.g. same sex marriage. While the politicians mentioned certainly stray a little further left than some others, they don't come near the far-left fringe that are often maligned. The politicians discussed there are still decidedly liberal, not leftist.

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2020, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, yes and no. I only skimmed the article, and I don't have a ton of time to really dig into why I say that, but the tl;dr is that what the author describes includes societal shifts that have made some of those ideas that once defined the far left to be mainstream, e.g. same sex marriage. While the politicians mentioned certainly stray a little further left than some others, they don't come near the far-left fringe that are often maligned. The politicians discussed there are still decidedly liberal, not leftist.

I don’t trust anyone who grew up in Maryland during the Ripken era that claims to be a Nats fan (The author), especially because he was attending college out of the state by the time their inaugural season was over.

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 04:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don’t trust anyone who grew up in Maryland during the Ripken era that claims to be a Nats fan (The author), especially because he was attending college out of the state by the time their inaugural season was over.

I get that. I mean, I was in Virginia and damn near became an Os fan during that era, myself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2020, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, yes and no. I only skimmed the article, and I don't have a ton of time to really dig into why I say that, but the tl;dr is that what the author describes includes societal shifts that have made some of those ideas that once defined the far left to be mainstream, e.g. same sex marriage. While the politicians mentioned certainly stray a little further left than some others, they don't come near the far-left fringe that are often maligned. The politicians discussed there are still decidedly liberal, not leftist.

Your conclusion assumes that this is a finite process and that it has ended.  Bay area politics didn't become mainstream and then stop evolving.  Bay area politics only got more extreme and, for reasons the author already cited, the same thing will continue to happen.  This is not a process that has ceased, it is ongoing.

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 10:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your conclusion assumes that this is a finite process and that it has ended.  Bay area politics didn't become mainstream and then stop evolving.  Bay area politics only got more extreme and, for reasons the author already cited, the same thing will continue to happen.  This is not a process that has ceased, it is ongoing.

I mean, it's still ignoring the fact that the DNC and the majority of elected officials at the federal level are still decidedly liberal and not leftist. Nancy Pelosi, for example, may be more progressive than some of her colleagues, but she is still very much a pragmatic liberal. The Democratic party has still not reached being center-left on the geopolitical spectrum. They relate more to center and even center-right parties across the globe.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2020, 10:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, it's still ignoring the fact that the DNC and the majority of elected officials at the federal level are still decidedly liberal and not leftist. Nancy Pelosi, for example, may be more progressive than some of her colleagues, but she is still very much a pragmatic liberal. The Democratic party has still not reached being center-left on the geopolitical spectrum. They relate more to center and even center-right parties across the globe.

I agree, but what I've been getting the push back about is the claim that the leftist agenda is gradually subsuming the Democratic party.  As stated, this is an ongoing and gradual process, which has accelerated a bit of late.  I will absolutely say I was surprised that Biden got the nomination, but his VP pick should be revealing in this regard.  Regardless, I stand by my assertion that the far left is making greater inroads into the party norm with every day.  Much like my predicting that CA style gun control would come to your home state.  I'm at ground zero for this bullshit, so I'm just seeing it in real time well before you guys back east do.

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 10:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree, but what I've been getting the push back about is the claim that the leftist agenda is gradually subsuming the Democratic party.  As stated, this is an ongoing and gradual process, which has accelerated a bit of late.  I will absolutely say I was surprised that Biden got the nomination, but his VP pick should be revealing in this regard.  Regardless, I stand by my assertion that the far left is making greater inroads into the party norm with every day.  Much like my predicting that CA style gun control would come to your home state.  I'm at ground zero for this bullshit, so I'm just seeing it in real time well before you guys back east do.

Well, CA style gun control isn't really leftist. That is still more of a liberal policy because leftist ideology is adamantly against disarming the workers. Also, here in Virginia we definitely didn't get the full CA experience. That AWB bullshit got kicked to the curb. The biggest issue was with the red flag laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2020, 10:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, CA style gun control isn't really leftist. That is still more of a liberal policy because leftist ideology is adamantly against disarming the workers. Also, here in Virginia we definitely didn't get the full CA experience. That AWB bullshit got kicked to the curb. The biggest issue was with the red flag laws.

Give it time, Bel, it's coming.  You and I had this exact discussion several years ago and you stated you'd never get what you just got.

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 10:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Give it time, Bel, it's coming.  You and I had this exact discussion several years ago and you stated you'd never get what you just got.

I don't know if I ever said that about red flag laws. Honestly, those weren't on my radar much until this recent legislative session when I did some more research on them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2020, 11:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know if I ever said that about red flag laws. Honestly, those weren't on my radar much until this recent legislative session when I did some more research on them.

I meant about the gun control in general.  You already got more restrictive laws then you previously thought possible.  More are coming, believe me.

[Belsnickel]

(08-10-2020, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I meant about the gun control in general.  You already got more restrictive laws then you previously thought possible.  More are coming, believe me.

Actually, what I saw passed wasn't more restrictive than I thought possible. The one-handgun-a-month we have had, previously. Universal background checks are popular. So are red flag laws, amazingly. The ones I knew wouldn't fly, didn't.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2020, 11:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, what I saw passed wasn't more restrictive than I thought possible. The one-handgun-a-month we have had, previously. Universal background checks are popular. So are red flag laws, amazingly. The ones I knew wouldn't fly, didn't.

I'm pleased to hear that.  Just wait though, they are far from finished on this issue.