The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
What’s in a Lie?
Gage Skidmore/Flickr
In The New Republic, Jeet Heer says that it is much less accurate to call Donald Trump a “liar” than it is to simply refer to him as “a bullshit artist.” As soon as I saw his lede, I knew he’d be relying on the popularized scholarship of Princeton philosophy Professor Harry G. Frankfurt. I remember seeing Prof. Frankfurt make an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote his 2005 book On Bullshit.
Frankfurt sought (with some success, obviously) to create a new definition of bullshit which distinguished it from simply saying things that you know are not true. A liar is fully aware of what is true and what is not true. They know whether or not they paid the electricity bill, for example, so when they tell you that they have no idea why the power is out, that’s a lie.
A bullshitter, by contrast, doesn’t even care what is true. They’re not so much lying to deceive as to create an impression. Maybe they want you to be afraid. Maybe they want you to think that they are smarter or more well-informed than they really are.
It’s a useful distinction to make, I think, although I also think people who engage in a lot of bullshit probably lie their heads off, too.
What’s probably more interesting than a fine-grained examination of differing types of prevarication is to take a look at the audience for the stuff. Who believes it? What does getting bullshitted do to them?
That’s why I found the following to be the most interesting part of Heer’s essay:
The triumph of bullshit has consequences far beyond the political realm, making society as a whole more credulous and willing to accept all sorts of irrational beliefs. A newly published article in the academic journal Judgment and Decision Making links “bullshit receptivity” to other forms of impaired thinking: “Those more receptive to bullshit are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.”
That’s a lot of academic language that basically says that stupid and gullible people are easy to fool. I think we knew that.
But the real key is that, although there is never any shortage of credulous people, they need to be lied to first before they are led astray. If you don’t exploit their cognitive weaknesses and you lead them toward the truth, they aren’t so misinformed. By constantly bullshitting them, you’re making them less informed and probably more cynical, too.
As a personal observation, I’d add that due to the cheerleading aspects of “team sport” American politics, if one party consistently resorts to bullshit as a core strategy, and they have some electoral success doing it, then the fanboys and girls of that party are going to start liking the play call.
“Hey, this bullshit works like a charm! It works every time!”
And, then, you get a post-truth party.
Gage Skidmore/Flickr
In The New Republic, Jeet Heer says that it is much less accurate to call Donald Trump a “liar” than it is to simply refer to him as “a bullshit artist.” As soon as I saw his lede, I knew he’d be relying on the popularized scholarship of Princeton philosophy Professor Harry G. Frankfurt. I remember seeing Prof. Frankfurt make an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote his 2005 book On Bullshit.
Frankfurt sought (with some success, obviously) to create a new definition of bullshit which distinguished it from simply saying things that you know are not true. A liar is fully aware of what is true and what is not true. They know whether or not they paid the electricity bill, for example, so when they tell you that they have no idea why the power is out, that’s a lie.
A bullshitter, by contrast, doesn’t even care what is true. They’re not so much lying to deceive as to create an impression. Maybe they want you to be afraid. Maybe they want you to think that they are smarter or more well-informed than they really are.
It’s a useful distinction to make, I think, although I also think people who engage in a lot of bullshit probably lie their heads off, too.
What’s probably more interesting than a fine-grained examination of differing types of prevarication is to take a look at the audience for the stuff. Who believes it? What does getting bullshitted do to them?
That’s why I found the following to be the most interesting part of Heer’s essay:
The triumph of bullshit has consequences far beyond the political realm, making society as a whole more credulous and willing to accept all sorts of irrational beliefs. A newly published article in the academic journal Judgment and Decision Making links “bullshit receptivity” to other forms of impaired thinking: “Those more receptive to bullshit are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.”
That’s a lot of academic language that basically says that stupid and gullible people are easy to fool. I think we knew that.
But the real key is that, although there is never any shortage of credulous people, they need to be lied to first before they are led astray. If you don’t exploit their cognitive weaknesses and you lead them toward the truth, they aren’t so misinformed. By constantly bullshitting them, you’re making them less informed and probably more cynical, too.
As a personal observation, I’d add that due to the cheerleading aspects of “team sport” American politics, if one party consistently resorts to bullshit as a core strategy, and they have some electoral success doing it, then the fanboys and girls of that party are going to start liking the play call.
“Hey, this bullshit works like a charm! It works every time!”
And, then, you get a post-truth party.
grokit
well-worn member
Agreed, lying is now a requirement for being an elected republican. Trump is just taking over the club without paying any dues. Seriously, try and name one of them that isn't full of "bullshit that works like a charm". This is what their constituency currently requires, because reality is no good for them
edit:
There are many theories, but a look at polling data gives us a clear picture of a demographic in decline
also:
Trump wins because he lies: Truthiness, Fox News, and why the right likes a fact-free zone
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
GOP sabotage campaign targets Obama administration (again)
12/01/15 08:00 AM—Updated 12/01/15 08:39 AM
By Steve Benen
Congressional Republican efforts to sabotage U.S. domestic policy is unique in modern American history. For generations, Democrats and Republicans have waged fierce fights over all kinds of policy measures, but even bitter partisans didn’t make much of an effort to weaken existing American laws and programs after they were implemented – though that’s exactly what Republicans did during the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
But U.S. policymakers taking steps to sabotage U.S. foreign policy is qualitatively different, and far more alarming – and in the Obama era, far more common.
We’ve occasionally seen individual Republicans taking steps to undermine the White House on the global stage. For example, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) traveled to Guatemala last year and worked against U.S. foreign policy during the migrant-children crisis. In 2010, then-House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) traveled to Israel in the hopes of undermining U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As long-time readers know, actions like these used to be unheard of in the American tradition, but once President Obama took office, Republicans largely re-wrote the rules.
Earlier this year, 47 Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), took the campaign to an entirely new level, sending a letter to Iran, telling officials not to trust the United States. The goal wasn’t subtle: GOP lawmakers hoped to sabotage their own country’s foreign policy in the midst of delicate international nuclear talks.
A month later, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the nation’s most aggressive climate deniers and the man Senate Republicans chose to lead the Senate committee on environmental policy, boasted, “The Tom Cotton letter was an educational effort.” As global climate talks get underway at the COP21 conference in Paris, Republicans hope to apply the lessons of the educational effort to try to sabotage the White House once more.
In Washington, congressional Republicans have drawn a line against the president’s climate initiatives, and the House is scheduled to vote this week on legislation that would undo new Environmental Protection Agency rules on power-plant emissions – a major element of the administration’s efforts to address climate change.
The legislation is unlikely to become law, but Republicans hope it shows the international climate negotiators that the nation is not united politically behind the president’s proposals.
It’s that last sentence that carries the most weight: congressional Republicans aren’t participants in the international climate talks, but they’re nevertheless hopeful that they can play a role in derailing the negotiations from afar.
This week’s vote is just part of a larger effort. GOP lawmakers, anticipating a possible climate agreement, are pushing to label any such deal a “treaty” so Congress would have the authority to kill it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), meanwhile, wrote a Washington Post op-ed over the holiday weekend insisting that the president doesn’t have the authority to sign an international climate agreement.
Meanwhile, Jim Inhofe, a.ka. Senator Snowball, has raised the prospect of traveling to Paris in order to tell international officials “that they’re going to be lied to by the Obama administration.”
Writing in The New Republic, Ben Adler recently summarized the dynamic nicely: “Republicans are trying to subvert their own government’s foreign policy on climate change.”
Note, the Republican Party – the only major party in any major democracy on Earth that rejects climate science – isn’t trying to convince anyone that its ridiculous views are correct. All GOP officials want is for Obama to come home empty-handed, indifferent to the fact that the climate crisis will continue to intensify without restrictions on pollution or emissions.
If that means American officials sabotaging American policy on the international stage, so be it.
As we talked about in April, we’ve grown quite accustomed to congressional Republicans causing deliberate gridlock on Capitol Hill. Increasingly, however, GOP lawmakers are equally eager to block policymaking on a global scale.
In the American tradition, the idea of elected U.S. officials brazenly trying to undermine their own country’s attempts at international leadership was unthinkable. But in 2015, it’s become almost routine.
In more ways than one, it’s not a healthy development.
12/01/15 08:00 AM—Updated 12/01/15 08:39 AM
By Steve Benen
Congressional Republican efforts to sabotage U.S. domestic policy is unique in modern American history. For generations, Democrats and Republicans have waged fierce fights over all kinds of policy measures, but even bitter partisans didn’t make much of an effort to weaken existing American laws and programs after they were implemented – though that’s exactly what Republicans did during the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
But U.S. policymakers taking steps to sabotage U.S. foreign policy is qualitatively different, and far more alarming – and in the Obama era, far more common.
We’ve occasionally seen individual Republicans taking steps to undermine the White House on the global stage. For example, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) traveled to Guatemala last year and worked against U.S. foreign policy during the migrant-children crisis. In 2010, then-House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) traveled to Israel in the hopes of undermining U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As long-time readers know, actions like these used to be unheard of in the American tradition, but once President Obama took office, Republicans largely re-wrote the rules.
Earlier this year, 47 Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), took the campaign to an entirely new level, sending a letter to Iran, telling officials not to trust the United States. The goal wasn’t subtle: GOP lawmakers hoped to sabotage their own country’s foreign policy in the midst of delicate international nuclear talks.
A month later, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the nation’s most aggressive climate deniers and the man Senate Republicans chose to lead the Senate committee on environmental policy, boasted, “The Tom Cotton letter was an educational effort.” As global climate talks get underway at the COP21 conference in Paris, Republicans hope to apply the lessons of the educational effort to try to sabotage the White House once more.
In Washington, congressional Republicans have drawn a line against the president’s climate initiatives, and the House is scheduled to vote this week on legislation that would undo new Environmental Protection Agency rules on power-plant emissions – a major element of the administration’s efforts to address climate change.
The legislation is unlikely to become law, but Republicans hope it shows the international climate negotiators that the nation is not united politically behind the president’s proposals.
It’s that last sentence that carries the most weight: congressional Republicans aren’t participants in the international climate talks, but they’re nevertheless hopeful that they can play a role in derailing the negotiations from afar.
This week’s vote is just part of a larger effort. GOP lawmakers, anticipating a possible climate agreement, are pushing to label any such deal a “treaty” so Congress would have the authority to kill it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), meanwhile, wrote a Washington Post op-ed over the holiday weekend insisting that the president doesn’t have the authority to sign an international climate agreement.
Meanwhile, Jim Inhofe, a.ka. Senator Snowball, has raised the prospect of traveling to Paris in order to tell international officials “that they’re going to be lied to by the Obama administration.”
Writing in The New Republic, Ben Adler recently summarized the dynamic nicely: “Republicans are trying to subvert their own government’s foreign policy on climate change.”
Note, the Republican Party – the only major party in any major democracy on Earth that rejects climate science – isn’t trying to convince anyone that its ridiculous views are correct. All GOP officials want is for Obama to come home empty-handed, indifferent to the fact that the climate crisis will continue to intensify without restrictions on pollution or emissions.
If that means American officials sabotaging American policy on the international stage, so be it.
As we talked about in April, we’ve grown quite accustomed to congressional Republicans causing deliberate gridlock on Capitol Hill. Increasingly, however, GOP lawmakers are equally eager to block policymaking on a global scale.
In the American tradition, the idea of elected U.S. officials brazenly trying to undermine their own country’s attempts at international leadership was unthinkable. But in 2015, it’s become almost routine.
In more ways than one, it’s not a healthy development.
olivianewtonjohn
Well-Known Member
IDK as someone who really really really does not want to vote for Hillary I find your scenarios abit limiting. I hate feeling like I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Being dragged out by politicians with a gun to our head that says vote or get mccain/romney/trump/whichever crazy person; it gets tiring.
On another note, even Bill O'Reilly thinks Trumps solutions are a joke (early interview, im sure hes alittle easier on Trump now since hes taken as a serious candidate by the GOP
)Top youtube comment, "Trump, the only man that makes Bill O´Reilly look sane."
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
That may be true, but the fact remains that for most all of the time, it's a choice of the less of two evils.
Farid
Well-Known Member
As somebody that loathes Trump, I still will not vote for Hillary over him. If it's Trump vs. Hillary I will probably not vote, but I cannot ignore the fact that Trump has said he was against the Iraq war, and Hillary voted to invade Iraq. To me, that makes them equally bad.
A wall with Mexico can be destroyed in 4 years. A country, however, cannot just be rebuilt.
A wall with Mexico can be destroyed in 4 years. A country, however, cannot just be rebuilt.
But it's a vision without the reality of a marginal tax rate of 90%. That's how we were able to build the Interstate Highway system. We need that tax rate again.
EDIT
====
Whoever wins this election controls who goes to the Supreme Court should a vacancy occur, a very likely outcome. Do you want more Scalia's or Ginsberg's?
Last edited:
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
A stupid person who doesn't give a damn about anything outside his desires.
or
A person who after much deliberation decides that he cannot support either of the offerings.
For society what is the difference?
or
A person who after much deliberation decides that he cannot support either of the offerings.
For society what is the difference?
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
IMO Trump would be detrimental to America as a whole. He would also make the rest of the world hate us even more.
I can't imagine sending families back to Mexico that have lived 10 or 20 years in America. What about their children that have been raised in our American society? They have to go back to a country of poverty and a terrible education system? It used to be terrible anyways in the small communities. I don't know if that has changed?
The giant wall is bullshit - it's laughable. He's a cartoon.
Make sure you treat your voting rights as gold. Everyone please vote.
Edit
I'm not saying Trump is crazy. I am offended by his statements and his message of hate. Just recently his imitation of a disabled reporter was over the top. People are getting ammuned to his reterick but it will be his downfall. Anything can happen, I will always remember our biggest blunder - George W. Bush. He is one of the reasons the Middle East is so unstable.
I can't imagine sending families back to Mexico that have lived 10 or 20 years in America. What about their children that have been raised in our American society? They have to go back to a country of poverty and a terrible education system? It used to be terrible anyways in the small communities. I don't know if that has changed?
The giant wall is bullshit - it's laughable. He's a cartoon.
Make sure you treat your voting rights as gold. Everyone please vote.
Edit
I'm not saying Trump is crazy. I am offended by his statements and his message of hate. Just recently his imitation of a disabled reporter was over the top. People are getting ammuned to his reterick but it will be his downfall. Anything can happen, I will always remember our biggest blunder - George W. Bush. He is one of the reasons the Middle East is so unstable.
Last edited:
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
There is plenty to criticize Hillary on, but this is facile to the point of being silly. I hope you don't live in a battleground state.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Agreed
@howie105 .... Trump, Carson and Cruz = Crazy. The rest of the bunch= just wrong.
So I agree with your statement in general, but I'd rather have the GOP nominee in the crazy category because they would be easily defeated in the general election. As a democrat I fear Rubio the most. He polls the best against both Clinton and Sanders. He's moderately conservative, his positions aren't extreme for the most part and he could attract a fair share of independents in the general. He's the establishment candidate who would give the GOP at least a shot at the White House.. Very weak on experience compared to Hilary though.. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict the GOP will ultimately nominate Rubio...
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
So now we know that the Donald wants to model the US Government after the Mafia...
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-isis-families-145744666.html
Donald Trump on ISIS: ‘You have to take out their families’
Dylan Stableford
Senior editor
December 2, 2015
Donald Trump’s plan to defeat the Islamic State involves destroying them — and their families.
“I would knock the hell out of ISIS, I would hit them so hard,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”
Trump’s comments came a day after the Lebanese government released Saja al-Dulaimi, the former wife of ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as part of a prisoner swap with an al-Qaida affiliate. But there was “no immediate indication that Dulaimi’s release was for the benefit of ISIS,” CNN reported. (She has been divorced from Baghdadi for more than six years and told Al Jazeera she hopes to resettle in Turkey.)
Meanwhile, the Republican frontrunner is attacking President Obama on ISIS, releasing a new campaign video critical of the administration’s response to the ongoing terror threat.
The video, released via Trump’s Instagram account on Tuesday, uses footage of a smiling Obama posing for selfies during a BuzzFeed photo shoot in February juxtaposed with images of ISIS training camps, the recent terror attacks in Paris and the downing of a Russian airliner.
“It is time for serious leadership,” reads an overlay before Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” appears.
According to a new Quinnipiac national poll released Wednesday, Trump is seen as best equipped among GOP candidates to handle terrorism, with 29 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters holding that view. Ben Carson, at 19 percent, is viewed as the second-best candidate when it comes to dealing with global terror, the poll found.
“I say ISIS is our No. 1 threat,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends” Wednesday. “And we have a president that doesn’t know what he is doing. And all he’s worried about is climate change.”
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-isis-families-145744666.html
Donald Trump on ISIS: ‘You have to take out their families’
Dylan Stableford
Senior editor
December 2, 2015
Donald Trump’s plan to defeat the Islamic State involves destroying them — and their families.
“I would knock the hell out of ISIS, I would hit them so hard,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”
Trump’s comments came a day after the Lebanese government released Saja al-Dulaimi, the former wife of ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as part of a prisoner swap with an al-Qaida affiliate. But there was “no immediate indication that Dulaimi’s release was for the benefit of ISIS,” CNN reported. (She has been divorced from Baghdadi for more than six years and told Al Jazeera she hopes to resettle in Turkey.)
Meanwhile, the Republican frontrunner is attacking President Obama on ISIS, releasing a new campaign video critical of the administration’s response to the ongoing terror threat.
The video, released via Trump’s Instagram account on Tuesday, uses footage of a smiling Obama posing for selfies during a BuzzFeed photo shoot in February juxtaposed with images of ISIS training camps, the recent terror attacks in Paris and the downing of a Russian airliner.
“It is time for serious leadership,” reads an overlay before Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” appears.
According to a new Quinnipiac national poll released Wednesday, Trump is seen as best equipped among GOP candidates to handle terrorism, with 29 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters holding that view. Ben Carson, at 19 percent, is viewed as the second-best candidate when it comes to dealing with global terror, the poll found.
“I say ISIS is our No. 1 threat,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends” Wednesday. “And we have a president that doesn’t know what he is doing. And all he’s worried about is climate change.”
Farid
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, al-Dulaimi was released as part of an exchange with Al Nusra (Syrian branch of AQ) because her brother is an Al Nusra leader. It likely has little to do with her affiliation with ISIS. I say this as somebody who is very much opposed to Al Nusra, ISIS, and any factions fighting the Syrian Government.
Sorry this is very off topic, it just relates to cybrguy's post.
Sorry this is very off topic, it just relates to cybrguy's post.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I always laugh when I hear people say that. Hillary didn't vote for the Iraq war. She voted to give the President at the time the authority to make that decision. You may not agree with her decision to do that, but that is what she voted on.
I think those of you who consider Hillary a hawk are wrong. Maybe compared to Sanders, I would be a hawk then, but not compared to other politicians and barely compared to the current President.
And, btw, if Obama is a Dove and Hillary is a Hawk, do you really believe that the President would have kept her for 4 years as the Secretary of State?
I think those of you who consider Hillary a hawk are wrong. Maybe compared to Sanders, I would be a hawk then, but not compared to other politicians and barely compared to the current President.
And, btw, if Obama is a Dove and Hillary is a Hawk, do you really believe that the President would have kept her for 4 years as the Secretary of State?
grokit
well-worn member
Obama is far from a dove, they're both hawks. Obama just fight his wars covertly and by proxy, and clinton would do the same. We have special forces operations going on right now in about 75% of the nations in this world, and defense spending has gone up.
How would you feel about other countries doing this type of thing on our soil?
"In 2015, according to Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to a record-shattering 147 countries — 75% of the nations on the planet, which represents a jump of 145% since the waning days of the Bush administration."
Last edited:
Farid
Well-Known Member
It's well known that Clinton and Obama disagree on several issues that make her more hawkish. Obama is more opposed to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Obama was less hasty to arm the Syrian rebels than Clinton would have been. Obama called for Egypt's president, Mubarak, to step down, whereas Clinton supported Mubarak. Obama does not flaunt his opposition to foreign powers like Iran, instead he tries and succeeds at negotiation.
I disagree with a lot of what Obama does, but I don't consider him to be nearly the hawk Hillary would be.
I disagree with a lot of what Obama does, but I don't consider him to be nearly the hawk Hillary would be.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I disagree. Who is the president? That's really important. Would you really like Ted Cruz as president? He would be bad for America and bad for me. I would assume he would try to stop legal cannabis ( I live in WA) and that is the lesser end of the equation.
What if George W. Bush was never elected president? He severely screwed up the country and some parts of the world.
Last edited:
howie105
Well-Known Member
A decade and a half of war at the hands of both parties tells me something different.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Howie, can you deny that invading Iraq and dismantling the whole Ba'thist party created a vacuum that is at the center of most of the shit that is going on today?
Now who's to blame for that? Well, there are enough dingbats in that pie to fill an auditorium, but it was Bush and Cheney who were at the head of that fiasco and that fiasco is going to go down as, in my opinion, the biggest blunder that we have ever made. We literally opened up Pandora's Box.
I remember back right before we invaded and I was hearing Bush giving a speech about how we're going to build this great free democracy that will be the envy of everyone in that part of the world and that the Iraqi's will welcome us with open arms and my first thought was................Right!!! You're going to take a country that has been tribal for centuries and have settled their differences at the point of a sword and magically turn it into a Democracy? WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING?
And I'm just some dumb schmo who shouldn't know better than the so-called leaders of our country.
amen 