Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

[JimL]

There’s things I didn’t like that Obama did, such as his increased drone strikes, attack on Liberia, or lying about the ACA. There’s also things I think were blown up, such as family vacations and the price of Michelle’s cloths. There’s also things I find ridiculous that are not worth talking about (such as Obama being a secret Muslim). However, I have no idea what views my grandchildren or great grandchildren will take on his legacy. Can you admit that much, about Trump?

No, i'm sure it will be understood fairly soon what Trumps legacy will be.

[Cow Poke]

As I wrote to MaxVel, this is work that has to be shown, not merely asserted. If someone is approaching an argument from the standpoint that bias exists and can infect one's reasoning, they do themselves a rather ridiculous disservice by turning around and imagining that of course they are the rational and objective arbiter of fact without first doing the work.

--Sam

I never claimed to be unbiased, Sam - I'm a conservative. Never said otherwise.

[Sam]

There’s things I didn’t like that Obama did, such as his increased drone strikes, attack on Liberia, or lying about the ACA. There’s also things I think were blown up, such as family vacations and the price of Michelle’s cloths. There’s also things I find ridiculous that are not worth talking about (such as Obama being a secret Muslim). However, I have no idea what views my grandchildren or great grandchildren will take on his legacy. Can you admit that much, about Trump?

We don't know exactly how the consensus of the next two generations will view Trump or Obama, no. But that doesn't make it a black box question or completely subjective, as you argued earlier. In fact, if we want to get the best, most empirical idea of how Obama or Trump will be viewed as historical figures, we have an entire discipline of study devoted to ascertaining those kinds of questions. American historians who have spent their careers studying the events and effects surrounding presidents would be a great source for anyone who wants to start understanding just what the historical significance and consensus regarding Obama and Trump will be.

And an awful lot of American historians aren't exactly bullish on Trump.

--Sam

[Sam]

I never claimed to be unbiased, Sam - I'm a conservative. Never said otherwise.

My point wasn't that you're biased -- as I wrote earlier, everyone has it. And it's fine to believe that other people are biased because they don't hew to what you believe are objective opinions.

But if you're going to accuse others of advocating biased opinions, that's when you have to show your work. You have to demonstrate how your understanding is the objective one and how theirs disregards objectivity.

That's the work that has to be done before an accusation of bias can be even considered.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

We don't know exactly how the consensus of the next two generations will view Trump or Obama, no. But that doesn't make it a black box question or completely subjective, as you argued earlier. In fact, if we want to get the best, most empirical idea of how Obama or Trump will be viewed as historical figures, we have an entire discipline of study devoted to ascertaining those kinds of questions. American historians who have spent their careers studying the events and effects surrounding presidents would be a great source for anyone who wants to start understanding just what the historical significance and consensus regarding Obama and Trump will be.

And an awful lot of American historians aren't exactly bullish on Trump.

--Sam

And as I pointed out already, views change. Some soften, others harden. There is indeed subjective and emotional reasons for this. As I said, you can’t even admit that much.

[Cow Poke]

My point wasn't that you're biased

Already in evidence.

-- as I wrote earlier, everyone has it. And it's fine to believe that other people are biased because they don't hew to what you believe are objective opinions.

But if you're going to accuse others of advocating biased opinions, that's when you have to show your work. You have to demonstrate how your understanding is the objective one and how theirs disregards objectivity.

That's the work that has to be done before an accusation of bias can be even considered.

--Sam

No, Sam, I don't have to "show my work". I can simply observe your own conduct and draw my own conclusions, and that can determine how I interact (or not) with you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Already in evidence.



No, Sam, I don't have to "show my work". I can simply observe your own conduct and draw my own conclusions, and that can determine how I interact (or not) with you.

Sam (1863 version): “Lincoln is going down as the worst president, in history. Look at all these smart people that say the same thing.”

[Sam]

Already in evidence.



No, Sam, I don't have to "show my work". I can simply observe your own conduct and draw my own conclusions, and that can determine how I interact (or not) with you.

That's a decision within your right to make. I would urge, however, that it be kept a private decision if you're not willing to put work behind such a public accusation.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

We all fondly remember the forbearance shown here and by Conservatives everywhere when they steadfastly refused to pass judgement on the Obama presidency.

--Sam

There's nothing wrong with criticizing a president in the moment, but nobody can confidently declare how history will remember him.

[Cow Poke]

That's a decision within your right to make.

Well, thanks. Thanks a lot.

I would urge, however, that it be kept a private decision if you're not willing to put work behind such a public accusation.

--Sam

Sam, I think one of your flaws (just between me and you) is your propensity to take yourself way more seriously than others here take you.

I simply have no desire to be bogged down in long back-and-forths with you.

I wish you well.

[Mountain Man]

And an awful lot of American historians aren't exactly bullish on Trump.

You say "an awful lot of American historians" and then link to an article featuring four historians who take little trouble to hide their obvious anti-Trump bias.

[Sam]

Well, thanks. Thanks a lot.



Sam, I think one of your flaws (just between me and you) is your propensity to take yourself way more seriously than others here take you.

I simply have no desire to be bogged down in long back-and-forths with you.

I wish you well.

I'm a fairly self-depreciating fellow, generally, but a major problem on this forum isn't an over-abundance of self-depreciating humor. It's more a major lack of serious, responsible engagement where folks hold themselves accountable to saying things -- especially things about others -- that they can defend as true and merited.

I say we tackle that before we worry about people taking themselves too seriously.

Be well, yourself -- almost said "Have a good weekend" but, no, that flew right past us.

--Sam

[Roy]

You can’t accurately judge a president until he’s been out of office for a few decades because history isn’t a hard science like physics or math, but is more heavily influenced by subjective opinions and the emotions of those studying it.

You can't accurately judge a president until he's been out of office because you don't know everything he'll do until then, and you can't always judge him accurately for a few decades because (i) many documents won't be available before then and (ii) presidential-level decisions can have long-term consequences that won't necessarily be apparent in the short term.

However, there aren't any cases where presidents judged to be among the worst during their term in office were later judged to be among the best.

[Sam]

You say "an awful lot of American historians" and then link to an article featuring four historians who take little trouble to hide their obvious anti-Trump bias.

The set is larger than the example, as is usually the case.

[Sam]

You can't accurately judge a president until he's been out of office because you don't know everything he'll do until then, and you can't always judge him accurately for a few decades because (i) many documents won't be available before then and (ii) presidential-level decisions can have long-term consequences that won't necessarily be apparent in the short term.

However, there aren't any cases where presidents judged to be among the worst during their term in office were later judged to be among the best.

I'd only replace "accurately" with "fully" but I otherwise agree.