Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    "Adam Schiff shouldn't have paraphrased Trump in an important congressional hearing" is a valid argument. Not a strong one, I'd say, and not one that anyone would really hold fast to over different years and people but it's valid.
    Schiff is about as partisan as he can be, and it was no accident that he 'paraphrased' in the manner he did.

    But that's not what folks here and elsewhere are arguing; they said that Schiff made up a quote and tried to pass it off as a quote. That's false -- and rather ignorantly or maliciously so. So if they're going to the parody game, in whatever form, they're going to face the same absurd standard.

    --Sam
    This is very much akin to somebody stating something in court, opposing counsel objects, and the judge declares "the jury will disregard the witness's testimony". Sure they will.

    Schiff knew exactly what he was doing, and no amount of 'clarification' is going to change it.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Schiff knew exactly what he was doing, and no amount of 'clarification' is going to change it.
      As Obamacare architect Johnathan Gruber infamously said, Democrats depend greatly on the stupidity of their voters.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Schiff is about as partisan as he can be, and it was no accident that he 'paraphrased' in the manner he did.



        This is very much akin to somebody stating something in court, opposing counsel objects, and the judge declares "the jury will disregard the witness's testimony". Sure they will.

        Schiff knew exactly what he was doing, and no amount of 'clarification' is going to change it.
        I'm not sure what clarification is necessary besides beginning and ending with the understanding that it's a paraphrase but folks who are really mad about it still shouldn't resort to lying about what Schiff did.

        And folks who think Schiff's paraphrase was unfair to Trump -- alleging a corrupt quid pro quo of "investigating" a 2016 conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden's involvement with a Ukrainian company in exchange for a WH meeting and military funds -- have had a bad couple of weeks of revelations that that's exactly what was going on.

        Sonderland testifies on Thursday and if the WaPo report is accurate, that'll be one more senior official confirming the nature of Trump's demands and "deliverables".

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          I'm not sure what clarification is necessary besides beginning and ending with the understanding that it's a paraphrase but folks who are really mad about it still shouldn't resort to lying about what Schiff did.

          And folks who think Schiff's paraphrase was unfair to Trump -- alleging a corrupt quid pro quo of "investigating" a 2016 conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden's involvement with a Ukrainian company in exchange for a WH meeting and military funds -- have had a bad couple of weeks of revelations that that's exactly what was going on.

          Sonderland testifies on Thursday and if the WaPo report is accurate, that'll be one more senior official confirming the nature of Trump's demands and "deliverables".

          --Sam
          Come on, Sam, nothing justifies Shiff's shifty mishandling of this matter - he knew exactly what he was doing.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Come on, Sam, nothing justifies Shiff's shifty mishandling of this matter - he knew exactly what he was doing.
            Turns out more or less accurately summarizing the nature of Trump's call with a foreign leader where the President leverages public resources for political campaign favors with a new set of "go to the mattresses" helpers.

            I mean, I'd be way more indignant about that, personally, than in a 20-second paraphrase that no one can remember well enough to accurately depict.

            --Sam
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              Turns out more or less accurately summarizing...
              That's the standard, Sam? Again, Schiff knew exactly what he was doing.

              I'm done. Argue away!
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • I will remind folks here that not only was Obama's "you didn't build that" line mischaracterized from the start, it became a wildly-popular attack line against him, even showing up at the 2012 Republican National Convention, with hordes of people misquoting him with adverse intent.

                So, yeah, I'm not feeling the continuity.

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  That's the standard, Sam? Again, Schiff knew exactly what he was doing.

                  I'm done. Argue away!
                  If the summary is more-or-less accurate and clearly identified as a paraphrase, yeah, that's the standard. And it's what we see many people do all the time, here and elsewhere, without remark. If you think it's a bad idea for a politician to do that, that's a valid criticism -- but make sure it's a consistent one.

                  As it stands, people are clearly using this faux outrage as a deflection from what Trump did and a way to invalidate Schiff. Straining at gnats to swallow camels, so to speak.

                  --Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    If the summary...
                    I'm done.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Not true mm. The word was used several times in this thread to dismiss my views on Trump. but what I see in you, pix, and many others is very real hatred of liberal ideas and the MSM that is so strong and so deep that you are willing to excuse much worse in trump because through him you have the opportunity to push back against those same things.

                      AFAICT, you were the one who introduced the accusation of hatred as a 'reason' to invalidate other's views into this thread, in your post #99, replying to Mountain Man.



                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                      not necessarily. The not working out part could be that she didn't want to be forced to resign every time she got pregnant. You are being ridiculous. There is nothing here except your hatred for the women.


                      Jim





                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                      What you dont realize mm is that you excuse and make excuses for Trump no matter how low he goes, no matter what laws he breaks, no matter who or what is harmed by his actions.

                      The moral compromises you are willing to accept on behalf of this man are just very difficult to comprehend.

                      Jim
                      Back at you, pal. You're no exemplar of moral virtue in this area yourself. You accuse others of hatred as a motivation, then complain when they turn that back on you. You dodge accepting anti-Trump media bias. You're clearly biased against Trump, yet you won't accept that, and accuse others of making moral compromises... ...don't forget your own moral compromises.


                      This is not about Trump, or Warren, it's about your refusal to accept your own biases and prejudices. You have some background in science, right? Then how come you don't strive harder for objectivity? You're letting your passions cloud your observations, and that's spilling over into accusing your brothers and sisters of sinful behaviour. Not good.
                      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        No, I believe it absolutely can be shown to be objectively true and keeping good company with a number of American historians hasn't dissuaded me of that belief. We simply haven't had anything like this in modern history - not the subversion of the DOJ, not the corruption of State Department, not the reliance on "acting" agency members or the gutting of career officials and staff, not the blackout of Pentagon accountability.

                        It may be an opinion as opposed to what we might call "plain fact" but it's certainly an objective opinion that actually draws its inference from an unprecedented set of facts.

                        The "Obama/IRS" thing is another point in favor of what I'm saying: people who bring it up simply didn't follow the story to where the facts led. The IRS, as we eventually discovered, was "targeting" progressive SuperPAC groups just as much as conservative ones. The facts out of that story led to an agency suddenly overwhelmed by the Citizens United decision struggling to find an expeditious way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Which brings me to your last point: most of these things aren't fundamentally opinions on the partisan divide. That's your framing but if there are such things as facts and if those facts make one opinion or inference more rational than another then it is not partisan to advocate for the rational inference. And the fact that the "partisan divide" keeps changing on this front, as right-leaning and conservative people like David Frum, Max Boot, and George Will get lumped into the same side as Warren or Obama or Bill Clinton should serve as a warning that just because people might make a thing partisan doesn't mean it fundamentally is that way.

                        In any case, the basic fact remains the same: this is a cynicism. It's no good to simply project partisanship onto an issue when the issue can be rationally resolved. In this case, Warren is telling a set of stories that can easily be understood to be parts of a consistent whole. If someone wants to do the same thing for a story Trump tells, they're free to assemble the pieces and see if they fit. But there is a truth and it's more important that people work for that truth than just looking at things as yet another partisan squabble.

                        --Sam


                        You're missing my point, again.

                        You think that you are not partisan, and that your views are all based in objective facts, etc etc. No bias.

                        You're wrong. No-one is completely above bias. I'm not, you're not.


                        I've seen you accept the media presentation of something Trump said, and roll with the narrative they set. Yet when I look at the facts, the media presentation of the issue is clearly skewed unfavourably against Trump. That convinces me that you're biased towards certain positions, and biased against others. Doesn't make those positions right or wrong, but does make you less reliable as a judge of truth in those matters.

                        When you refuse to accept that you are NOT an objective observer, you weaken your own credibility, and you insulate yourself against having your preconceptions challenged by new data. Which means that your beliefs are less likely to reflect external reality. I guess if you're happy with that, .
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                          You're missing my point, again.

                          You think that you are not partisan, and that your views are all based in objective facts, etc etc. No bias.

                          You're wrong. No-one is completely above bias. I'm not, you're not.


                          I've seen you accept the media presentation of something Trump said, and roll with the narrative they set. Yet when I look at the facts, the media presentation of the issue is clearly skewed unfavourably against Trump. That convinces me that you're biased towards certain positions, and biased against others. Doesn't make those positions right or wrong, but does make you less reliable as a judge of truth in those matters.

                          When you refuse to accept that you are NOT an objective observer, you weaken your own credibility, and you insulate yourself against having your preconceptions challenged by new data. Which means that your beliefs are less likely to reflect external reality. I guess if you're happy with that, .
                          You're attributing to me things I've never said.

                          I've never claimed to be without bias, for one. That would be rather silly, given a basic understanding of epistemology. After that, you're going off-kilter by comparing "bias" against "objectivity" without any real explanation of how you're using the terms.

                          For my part, bias is implicit in all human processing: the brain introduces bias as a basic function of processing. Cognitive bias obviously exists. An objective opinion, then, is not one that is formed without the inclusion of bias (since that's impossible) but one that is formed against bias, by forming a reasoned and empirical basis. In modern epistemological terms, we might call an objective opinion something that forms from justified, rational, and warranted beliefs -- beliefs are justified when they cohere or correspond to an internal or external set of beliefs or facts (I favor correspondence theory over coherence, fwiw) and are warranted when the underlying cognitive framework is functioning correctly. Beliefs are rational when they adhere to a solid framework of deductive or inductive logic.

                          That's a lot of work, of course, but it takes a lot of work to overcome bias. So the question isn't whether something I believe looks objective to you but whether I and you can demonstrate that our competing beliefs are 1) justified, 2) rational, and 3) warranted.

                          I spend a good deal of time trying to make that case and, I'm sorry, but you don't invalidate it by simply disagreeing. The work has to be shown, the case has to be made.

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            That's the standard, Sam? Again, Schiff knew exactly what he was doing.

                            I'm done. Argue away!
                            Did a democrat say it, than Sam will defend it, no matter what. You can bet your lucky stripes if this was 2014 and a Republican would have pulled this stunt, he’d call it a dishonest attack because a Republican said it, so it’s false. Shoot, he didn’t even know that Clinton’s e mail contained classified material!
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              And there's "a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." (Eccl.3:8) but let's face it the Bible generally speaks pretty negatively about hate and hatred.
                              It does, but there’s a difference between general and always. I can’t say I would blame those who had intense feelings of hate and anger of those who first laid eyes on a Nazi death camp and found the horrors within.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Nor can "Hands off my Medicare!" recipients define the difference between USA welfare programs they want to keep around and socialism.

                                Not because there is no difference but because the word "socialism" is so broad and intertwined with favorable and unfavorable policy across the globe that any pat answer becomes meaningless. Much like capitalism or even liberalism and conservatism, to blend into the Will thread.

                                And the less someone understands this, the more they rely on insufficient labels to describe things. Dunning-Kruger meets DYMO maker.

                                --Sam
                                They only had Medicare and SSI taken out of their check, for 40-50 years, without their permission or consent. Why would they expect to have the government honor something they were forced to pay into?
                                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                251 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                338 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X