Let's make America smart again

[The Big Dog]

Il-il-il-il-il-illusiory Superiority!

nvm

 

[Belz...]

What amazes me about threads like this is is the utter blinders that Hillary's supporters had regarding their candidate, and now they are lost and are calling the other side "stupid" "uneducated" and the like.

This has little to do with Hillary. The choice of Trump would've been just as stupid regardless of whether his opponent had been Sanders or Biden or a garden hose. Trump's policies make no sense, he lies pretty much constantly, has a very shady business history and bases much of his campaign on hate towards people who couldn't possibly be responsible for the situation he and his supporters decry.

A smart person should be able to see through this, either by reasoning alone or by fact-checking. The fact that so many people didn't do that, or didn't care, is the issue here.

 

[The Big Dog]

This has little to do with Trump. The choice of Clinton would've been just as stupid regardless of whether her opponent had been Sanders or Biden or a garden hose. Clinton's policies were illusorry, she lies pretty much constantly, has a very shady history with Corporations and based much of her campaign on crony politics and the illusion that it was her turn.

A smart person should be able to see through this, either by reasoning alone or by fact-checking. The fact that so many people didn't do that, or didn't care, is the issue here.

 

[Belz...]

This has little to do with Trump. The choice of Clinton would've been just as stupid regardless of whether her opponent had been Sanders or Biden or a garden hose. Clinton's policies were illusorry, she lies pretty much constantly, has a very shady history with Corporations and based much of her campaign on crony politics and the illusion that it was her turn.

A smart person should be able to see through this, either by reasoning alone or by fact-checking. The fact that so many people didn't do that, or didn't care, is the issue here.

If you want to keep making posts like these, it'd be nice if you could a) actually modify all of the stuff you need to modify and not leave things that make no sense, such as leaving "Sanders or Biden" since she wasn't up against them in the presidential elections, b) make claims that are actually true about Clinton so as to not fall into the exact stereotype that led to the creation of this thread and c) in fact, not make posts like these at all so you can instead spend your time making actual arguments and points rather than just mock other posters and contribute nothing to the forum.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you want to keep making posts like these, it'd be nice if you could a) actually modify all of the stuff you need to modify and not leave things that make no sense, such as leaving "Sanders or Biden" since she wasn't up against them in the presidential elections, b) make claims that are actually true about Clinton so as to not fall into the exact stereotype that led to the creation of this thread and c) in fact, not make posts like these at all so you can instead spend your time making actual arguments and points rather than just mock other posters and contribute nothing to the forum.

It would be nice if people would realize that 1. Hillary never should have gotten out of the primaries, a fact that the general election made resoundingly clear; 2. simply gainsaying is not actually an argument; 3. [not worthy of comment]

 

[Belz...]

It would be nice if people would realize that 1. Hillary never should have gotten out of the primaries, a fact that the general election made resoundingly clear

"Should" has nothing to do with it. The question is whether another candidate would've done better, and there's an argument to be made for that.

2. simply gainsaying is not actually an argument

Wasn't that the whole point of your previous post?

Again, the claims against Hillary were never shown to be true, and so they can be dismissed.

3. [not worthy of comment]

Asking you to make cogent arguments and relevant points is not worthy of comments?



By the way it was a, b and c, not 1, 2 and 3.

 

[sunmaster14]

In my opinion Hillary was a far better choice than we were led to believe. She was investigated for Benghazi and her emails (twice) and her foundation and so far ZILCH. I mean, even if you don't like her (like me) you have to at some point go with the evidence and admit that she's nowhere as crooked (or dishonest) as people are claiming. Claims of her being a warmonger are similarily based on insinuation and unsupported claims.

Trump, on the other hand, has a history of demonstrable lying and borderline fraud, and his policies make no social or economic sense, when he has a policy at all and doesn't reverse it in the same sentence.

I fail to see how he could possibly be the better choice, especially "by far".

Well, the above paragraphs reveal how ignorant you are. I don't believe somebody is stupid for supporting her. If I were a liberal, I would support her too. But I wouldn't claim that she wasn't thoroughly corrupt. It would just be of secondary importance to my decision, just as Trump's narcissism, dishonesty, and incoherence are of secondary importance. In homage to the World Championship which is happening right now in New York, I'll draw an analogy to chess. The analysis by liberals in this thread and around this forum, and even in the upper echelons of the liberal blogosphere, is like the analysis done by a 1-move patzer in chess. The patzer sees that his opponent left his rook en prise and thinks that his opponent is stupid. But he doesn't understand that taking the rook is a bad idea which will be proved a couple of moves down the road. The analysis I see here is so shallow that it's just plain ignorant. It is one thing to start with different axioms or postulates (e.g. of what is moral or what is fair) and reach, by sound reasoning, an opposite conclusion to mine. It is quite another to use simply incorrect observations of reality as your starting point, and then apply faulty logic from there.

What's particularly ironic is that Trump is really just Obama without the airs and "dignified" trappings. Even though I saw what Obama was back in 2008, and I thought even back then he would be a poor President (and, in my opinion, I was proved right), I did not disparage those who supported him. He represented a change, and it didn't matter terribly much that he was inexperienced or largely unknown. His supporters could make a pretty good guess about the kinds of policies he would promote, and there was good reason to believe that electing a black President would have a salubrious effect on our society. I never said, or believed that somebody was dumb or ignorant simply because he supported Obama. Which is not to say that I didn't think that it was dumb to support him for any specific reason (like, e.g., that he would be pro-Israel, since it was quite obvious that he would not be).

Especially those millions of people who are about to lose their health insurance. Damn moochers.

They won't lose their health insurance. I have already predicted that, and I would put money where my mouth is too. In any case, Obamacare is untenable as it is. Already, so many people are finding, much to their surprise, that they are paying thousands of dollars a year for health insurance only to find out that their deductibles are $6,000 or more, so they effectively have an extraordinarily expensive (thanks to the implicit wealth distribution at work) catastrophic plan.

Do you really believe that shaking up the system is a good reason to put it at risk like this? How dangerous, insane or incompetent must a candidate be to disqualify him or her in this scenario?

Yes. As I've said before, the Presidency is idiot-proof but not genius-proof. Hillary Clinton was a much graver threat to liberty than Donald Trump could be. The mainstream media will be on Trump's ass from day 1 (or actually day -72), and Trump is not smart enough to get away with anything to devious. I can't say the same for the Clintons.

Isn't that, in and of itself, patronising? The right have been demonising scientists, economists, intellectuals and liberals for decades, and it now has the gall to say that they were being ridiculed?

That's simply a false claim. I am part of that intellectual elite. I know what the elite thinks of the unwashed masses. I also am aware of the fact that in one's own particular discipline, an elitist is correct. The problem arises when the elitist who is better at theoretical physics than some redneck in the South also thinks he is better at deciding how that redneck should live. The fundamental problem with the elite's attitude is that the problem of engineering a society to maximize happiness is too hard a problem for any human being, no matter how smart. Failure to recognize that truth is what brings disdain from the unwashed masses. The unwashed masses are not as dumb as the elite thinks they are, and the elite are not as smart as they think they are. That's perhaps the most important thing I've learned during my adulthood which has made me into a conservative.

 

[NoahFence]

Well, the above paragraphs reveal how ignorant you are. I don't believe somebody is stupid for supporting her. If I were a liberal, I would support her too. But I wouldn't claim that she wasn't thoroughly corrupt. It would just be of secondary importance to my decision, just as Trump's narcissism, dishonesty, and incoherence are of secondary importance. In homage to the World Championship which is happening right now in New York, I'll draw an analogy to chess. The analysis by liberals in this thread and around this forum, and even in the upper echelons of the liberal blogosphere, is like the analysis done by a 1-move patzer in chess. The patzer sees that his opponent left his rook en prise and thinks that his opponent is stupid. But he doesn't understand that taking the rook is a bad idea which will be proved a couple of moves down the road. The analysis I see here is so shallow that it's just plain ignorant. It is one thing to start with different axioms or postulates (e.g. of what is moral or what is fair) and reach, by sound reasoning, an opposite conclusion to mine. It is quite another to use simply incorrect observations of reality as your starting point, and then apply faulty logic from there.

What's particularly ironic is that Trump is really just Obama without the airs and "dignified" trappings. Even though I saw what Obama was back in 2008, and I thought even back then he would be a poor President (and, in my opinion, I was proved right), I did not disparage those who supported him. He represented a change, and it didn't matter terribly much that he was inexperienced or largely unknown. His supporters could make a pretty good guess about the kinds of policies he would promote, and there was good reason to believe that electing a black President would have a salubrious effect on our society. I never said, or believed that somebody was dumb or ignorant simply because he supported Obama. Which is not to say that I didn't think that it was dumb to support him for any specific reason (like, e.g., that he would be pro-Israel, since it was quite obvious that he would not be).



They won't lose their health insurance. I have already predicted that, and I would put money where my mouth is too. In any case, Obamacare is untenable as it is. Already, so many people are finding, much to their surprise, that they are paying thousands of dollars a year for health insurance only to find out that their deductibles are $6,000 or more, so they effectively have an extraordinarily expensive (thanks to the implicit wealth distribution at work) catastrophic plan.



Yes. As I've said before, the Presidency is idiot-proof but not genius-proof. Hillary Clinton was a much graver threat to liberty than Donald Trump could be. The mainstream media will be on Trump's ass from day 1 (or actually day -72), and Trump is not smart enough to get away with anything to devious. I can't say the same for the Clintons.



That's simply a false claim. I am part of that intellectual elite. I know what the elite thinks of the unwashed masses. I also am aware of the fact that in one's own particular discipline, an elitist is correct. The problem arises when the elitist who is better at theoretical physics than some redneck in the South also thinks he is better at deciding how that redneck should live. The fundamental problem with the elite's attitude is that the problem of engineering a society to maximize happiness is too hard a problem for any human being, no matter how smart. Failure to recognize that truth is what brings disdain from the unwashed masses. The unwashed masses are not as dumb as the elite thinks they are, and the elite are not as smart as they think they are. That's perhaps the most important thing I've learned during my adulthood which has made me into a conservative.

 

[sunmaster14]

NoahFence hates Trump with a fervor that is almost criminal, has predicted disaster if he were to be elected, and has viciously attacked Trump's supporters for being idiots. And this is his response to a multi-paragraph, heartfelt (and I think reasoned) argument from me. Like I said, this is the most ironic thread ever.

 

[Belz...]

Well, the above paragraphs reveal how ignorant you are.

Well, the thread is about making people smart again so I await your attempt at educating me.

I don't believe somebody is stupid for supporting her. If I were a liberal, I would support her too.

Again, my point has nothing to do with being partisan or ideological. I think Republican voters should've voted for her, too, because she was simply the best candidate despite her flaws.

But I wouldn't claim that she wasn't thoroughly corrupt.

Based on what? Accusations of corruption? Are accusations enough now? I agree that her unwillingness to release information about her speeches doesn't look good, but "thoroughly corrupt" is an unwarranted conclusion even if we assume the worst on this issue.

Trump's narcissism, dishonesty, and incoherence are of secondary importance.

I think a president's character is of primary importance, but ok.

The patzer sees that his opponent left his rook en prise and thinks that his opponent is stupid. But he doesn't understand that taking the rook is a bad idea which will be proved a couple of moves down the road. The analysis I see here is so shallow that it's just plain ignorant. It is one thing to start with different axioms or postulates (e.g. of what is moral or what is fair) and reach, by sound reasoning, an opposite conclusion to mine. It is quite another to use simply incorrect observations of reality as your starting point, and then apply faulty logic from there.

By all means: what are my faulty assumptions and reasonings?

What's particularly ironic is that Trump is really just Obama without the airs and "dignified" trappings.

I think you forget that he's running as a Republican and thus will appoint right-wing loons instead of more reasonable people. There's sort of a package deal that comes with the President.

He represented a change, and it didn't matter terribly much that he was inexperienced or largely unknown.

Change for change's sake? No thanks.

They won't lose their health insurance.

The Republicans have been trying to kill the ACA for years and it's one of their stated goals during and after the campaign. What makes you think they won't act on this?

In any case, Obamacare is untenable as it is.

So they won't repeal Obamacare but if they do then it's a good decision anyway. You're trying to have it both ways.

Yes. As I've said before, the Presidency is idiot-proof but not genius-proof.

What if you have idiots in the House, Senate and Supreme Court as well? How are your checks and balances going to stop that?

Hillary Clinton was a much graver threat to liberty than Donald Trump could be.

Based on what evidence?

That's simply a false claim. I am part of that intellectual elite. I know what the elite thinks of the unwashed masses. I also am aware of the fact that in one's own particular discipline, an elitist is correct. The problem arises when the elitist who is better at theoretical physics than some redneck in the South also thinks he is better at deciding how that redneck should live.

And how does the elitist think the redneck should live? When have they imposed anything on them? Hopefully you're not refering to their bakers having to make cakes for the gays.

The fundamental problem with the elite's attitude is that the problem of engineering a society to maximize happiness is too hard a problem for any human being, no matter how smart. Failure to recognize that truth is what brings disdain from the unwashed masses.

Yeah, well that's where the unwashed masses act stupidly. The low-population states have a lot more power than they should have were they proportionally represented, so what exactly do they have to complain about?

The unwashed masses are not as dumb as the elite thinks they are, and the elite are not as smart as they think they are.

Well, the masses elected Trump, so maybe they are as dumb as we think they are. As for the second sentence, maybe.

 

[The Big Dog]

"Should" has nothing to do with it. The question is whether another candidate would've done better, and there's an argument to be made for that.



Wasn't that the whole point of your previous post?

Again, the claims against Hillary were never shown to be true, and so they can be dismissed.



Asking you to make cogent arguments and relevant points is not worthy of comments?



By the way it was a, b and c, not 1, 2 and 3.

quod erat demonstrandum

Takes a deep bow.

 

[Belz...]

quod erat demonstrandum

Takes a deep bow.

Would you want to actually address any of the points or claims that I've made?

 

[The Big Dog]

Would you want to actually address any of the points or claims that I've made?

Oh gosh no, they speak more eloquently and forcefully regarding the thread title and the thesis of the thread than one could hope to duplicate.

 

[The Shrike]

An example to explore critically: "Build the Wall." Trump's wall-call was a brilliant rhetorical move that, if it didn't win him the election, probably did more than anything else to win him the nomination.

That bumper-sticker policy, however, falls apart like a tissue in a tidal wave when the following items are considered:

*we've had a sustained run of job growth
*manufacturing has actually increased in recent years
*job losses have been significantly attributable to automation and outsourcing, not just illegal immigration
*who's hiring those illegal immigrants?
*most illegals come here legally and just don't return when they're supposed to
*illegal immigration has declined in recent years
*Obama has deported more illegals than any other president
*a "wall" will be incredibly expensive and no, Mexico will not pay for it
etc.

I'm pretty sure most of those are objective facts that render "Build the wall!" an untenable policy. If so, what can be said of people who support that policy, or who supported Trump in large measure because of that policy? They either (1) support and untenable policy or (2) were too incurious to examine the policy and see if it made any sense. Either way, that demonstrates to me a lack of critical thought on a key platform issue of candidate Trump.

This isn't to say that Hillary Clinton espoused a policy that was objectively better, but we'll never know because we never had a decent conversation about immigration policy during our endless campaign.

 

[Belz...]

Oh gosh no, they speak more eloquently and forcefully regarding the thread title and the thesis of the thread than one could hope to duplicate.

See, this is a problem I have with your posting style: you think that, when you disagree with another poster, the mere fact that they post opinions that differ from yours is reason enough to dismiss them, and in fact do not require any sort of rebuttal because they are, by definition, wrong by the simple act of being not in agreement with yours.

You can rinse and repeat this over and over, but to anyone reading the thread this sort of approach seems hollow and silly. Plus, since this is a discussion forum, and one dedicated to reason and education, you'd provide a net plus to the community if you went one step further and demonstrated the error of your opponents' ways.

Remember Christophera and his concrete core nonsense? Did we just sneer at him and quote his posts with laughing dogs appended at the end? No. We spend months debating him on his repetitive postings. Why did we do this, even though he was making patently nonsensical and false claims? Because that's how you conduct a discussion. That's how you bring people around to your "side".

So here, if I'm wrong, you can surely show that I'm wrong. Merely quoting me and saying that this proves that I'm wrong by the simple act of quoting me not only DOESN'T show that I'm wrong, but it actually instead gives the impression that you have neither arguments, evidence, nor convictions.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, the claims against Hillary were never shown to be true, and so they can be dismissed.

Did we just sneer at him and quote his posts with laughing dogs appended at the end?

Be a bit more persuasive if you directed this to your fellow travelers.

But I will take a moment to explain. This:

Again, the claims against Hillary were never shown to be true, and so they can be dismissed.

is meaningless. Example: Did she use a private server? Yes. Did she dissemble about it? Yes. Did it impact her candidacy? Hell yes.

As such saying that "it can be dismissed" is exactly what we are talking about: Dismissing her glaring flaws is not "smart."

 

[Belz...]

This:

Again, the claims against Hillary were never shown to be true, and so they can be dismissed.

is meaningless. Example: Did she use a private server? Yes. Did she dissemble about it? Yes. Did it impact her candidacy? Hell yes.

As such saying that "it can be dismissed" is exactly what we are talking about: Dismissing her glaring flaws is not "smart."

How is it a glaring flaw?

The accusation against Clinton was that this behaviour was criminal. The FBI, headed by a Republican, found nothing despite, it seems, having an anti-Clinton faction within it. We can thus conclude that it isn't criminal. So what is really so bad, here? Was it a mistake to do so? Sure, but you're going a lot further than this and, since you seem willing to offer an argument now, I'd like you to explain why.

 

[The Big Dog]

How is it a glaring flaw?

The accusation against Clinton was that this behaviour was criminal.

Remember when i said that Hillary and her fans had set the bar so low?

Not criminal? That is such a ridiculous thing to say, and why I spent months pointing out how utterly silly it was: Hillary 2016, Not Indicted Yet.

And now we are past the election that she lost in no little part because of her glaring unfavorables, caused in large part because of her contempt for transparency and her dissembling and you repeat the claim that "it wasn't criminal" so it can be dismissed?

Dismissing it is not just not "smart" it is patently ridiculous if you want to learn the actual lessons from the last election cycle.

 

[sunmaster14]

An example to explore critically: "Build the Wall." Trump's wall-call was a brilliant rhetorical move that, if it didn't win him the election, probably did more than anything else to win him the nomination.

That bumper-sticker policy, however, falls apart like a tissue in a tidal wave when the following items are considered:

*we've had a sustained run of job growth

Job growth has been weak, particularly when you consider how deep a recession we went through. Normally, you bounce back from deep recessions with above-average job growth. From 1-Jan-2008 to 1-Feb-2010 (when the recession ended), the country lost 8.7 million jobs. From the trough through 1-May-2016, the country added 14.16 million jobs, which is an average of 187,000 jobs per month. The magic number needed to accommodate a growing labor force without a rise in unemployment or a decline in participation rate is 145,000 per month. Thus, it is pretty clear that 187,000 average is no great shakes, especially given the fact that over 60% of the job gains just replaced those lost "temporarily" due to the financial crisis.

*manufacturing has actually increased in recent years

That's a propos of nothing. A job is a job. It doesn't matter if it is assembling a widget or designing one or providing a service.

*job losses have been significantly attributable to automation and outsourcing, not just illegal immigration

Illegal immigrants are clearly flooding the low-end of the labor market with tons of supply, which both depresses wages and increases unemployment. Not too hard to understand. In addition, illegal immigrants are a net drain on society in that they consume on average more in benefits and strain on our infrastructure than good that they produce. That's not even the relevant metric. Their net economic contribution should be compared to the opportunity cost of foregoing a more productive legal immigrant whom we have turned away because of assimilation capacity issues.

*who's hiring those illegal immigrants?

Probably too many people to crack down on. Cracking down on people who hire illegal immigrants (much of which could be unwitting) could impair the smooth operation of the labor market. Better to prevent illegal immigrants from getting across the border in the first place.

*most illegals come here legally and just don't return when they're supposed to

False. It's well under 40% and probably under 30%. As proof just consider the percentage of illegal immigrants who are from Latin America (something like 80%). It is impossible that anything more than a small fraction of those people arrived on tourist visas and overstayed.

*illegal immigration has declined in recent years

Because of the economy, or perhaps because of poor accounting of their numbers. How does one even count people crossing the border who you don't see in the first place? As the US economy picks up, illegal immigration will pick up again.

*Obama has deported more illegals than any other president

False. That's because the Obama administration reports misleading numbers, counting those caught at the border as being deported. See here.

*a "wall" will be incredibly expensive and no, Mexico will not pay for it
etc.

The cost is a drop in the bucket in comparison to our $18 trillion economy. Making Mexico pay for it is just rhetorical entertainment. Although, from one perspective, Mexico has already paid for it because Trump's election has caused the Mexico peso to decline in value by about 10%, which represents a move in the terms of trade in our favor roughly equal to what would be spent building the wall over the next 8 years.

I'm pretty sure most of those are objective facts that render "Build the wall!" an untenable policy. If so, what can be said of people who support that policy, or who supported Trump in large measure because of that policy? They either (1) support and untenable policy or (2) were too incurious to examine the policy and see if it made any sense. Either way, that demonstrates to me a lack of critical thought on a key platform issue of candidate Trump.

I want the wall to be built. I think it will be a great thing. Happy to debate it in another thread, but I suggest you do a little research first.

 

[Ziggurat]

How is it a glaring flaw?

The accusation against Clinton was that this behaviour was criminal. The FBI, headed by a Republican, found nothing despite, it seems, having an anti-Clinton faction within it.

No. The FBI found a lot (despite being handicapped in its investigation). Comey decided it wasn't enough to prosecute, but 1) that doesn't mean that it's okay, or that voters shouldn't consider it disqualifying, and 2) it doesn't even mean that it wasn't criminal. It can still be criminal but with an element of that criminality hard to prove or not worth pursuing, for example. Comey never said that there was no crime.

We can thus conclude that it isn't criminal.

I know you want to conclude that, but it doesn't logically follow.