08-30-2019, 11:23 PM
(08-30-2019, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Odd you jump to the conclusion my knowledge comes from "talking heads," as to opposed books, actual political science/history scholarship.
Not clear what talking heads you could be referring to, or how you could "know" they're ignorant--though the stance is not surprising given that selective hyper-skepticism of media is a feature of Trump/post-truth era. To me you're still the guy who thinks Gore would have invaded Iraq, "mid-level" bureaucrats would direct US foreign policy under Trump, Trump's character would be changed by the gravity of his office, and the legal critique of felon disenfranchisement is just "race baiting." And then there is all you "know" about climate change, from the WSJ (they're "informative" at least!) and other friends of Exxon. You are clearly an "independent" who can be counted upon to defend Republican talking points.
In this thread you are calling mere claims "explanations." People who don't respond to those claims as divine fiat you style as dis-informed, ignorant, "pretending not to be" etc. That's just truthiness.
I don't doubt you believe deeply you are right in all these matters and that others are "ignorant" and "disinformed," just as you knew you were right about about Trump's character and who would "really" make foreign policy in his administration, but people who know how to debate don't simply play claims like trump cards and insult other players. They support claims with demonstration, they take extra care to make sure they don't misunderstand others. Little incentive to do that if one assumes others are just "ignorant" from the get go.
Christ, I forgot about the career staffers directing foreign policy crap . . . and his expertise in military invasions and nation building. All based upon education and experience, no doubt.
