I didn’t watch Donald Trump’s State of the Union a few days ago. I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. And, apparently, I wasn’t alone. Viewership, it seems, was way down. Which, I guess, given what he had to say, was a good thing. Trump not only lied, but he lied a lot, even by his standards. And, yes, for what it’s worth, I think that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was justified in tearing up her copy of Trump’s speech, which she later referred to as a “manifesto of mistruths.” Not only was it completely called for, but, in doing so, she was able to keep the attention on the content of what Donald Trump actually said, rather than his calculated attempts to appear like a legitimate president by doing things like recognizing war heroes, bestowing medals, and the like.
In the State of the Union, Donald Trump lied about a number of things. He lied about fighting to protect people with pre-existing conditions. [He said, “we will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.” He called it an “ironclad pledge.” In reality, however, the Trump administration is actively pursuing court cases to remove the current protections in place to protect people with pre-existing conditions.] He lied about protecting Medicare and Social Security. [He said, “We will always protect your Medicare and your Social Security, always.” Just two weeks ago, however, he said in an interview with CNCB’s Joe Kernen that “entitlement” programs would soon be on the chopping block. And, from what we’re hearing about his 2020 budget, it’s already happening. The administration, it would seem, is calling for $25 billion in cuts from Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) over the next ten years and $800 billion in Medicaid cuts over the same period.] And, of course, he lied about the economy. And that’s what I’m hoping to spend a little time on right now.
Here are just a few examples of statements about the economy made by Donald Trump during his racist, lie filled, and deeply offensive State of the Union address… His quotes are bold.
“Our economy is the best it has ever been.” -Donald Trump
It’s true that the economic expansion begun under the administration of President Barack Obama is now in its 11th year. It is also true that our unemployment rate has hit a 50-year low. Both of these are good things to be sure. When it comes to wage growth, however, and the overall strength of the economy, there have certainly been much better times for our country. Here, to give you sense of Trump’s economy in context, is a chart from economic analyst Steven Rattner showing GDP growth under the last 12 administrations.
And, as for unemployment and job growth, the issue is a bit more complex than Donald Trump would have you believe. First, the unemployment number reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, just counts as “unemployed” those people who have active sought employment in the past four weeks. [So, if people drop out of the economy, even temporality, it doesn’t count them as unemployed. It also doesn’t count those who are underemployed, having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, etc.] And, more importantly, while unemployment may be the lowest it’s been in 50 years, the rate at which it’s dropping is not. Here’s another graph from Steven Rattner. This one shows Trump’s unemployment numbers in relation to Obama’s. As Rattner points out, “the downtrend is simply a continuation from the Obama administration, which oversaw a 5.3 percentage point decline from the peak vs. Trump’s 1.2 percent improvement.”
And, when you look the raw data, you see that Obama created more jobs in his last 35 months in office that Trump did in his first 35 months. It’s also worth remembering, when you hear Donald Trump crowing about how good his unemployment numbers are, that he referred to these same reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as “a total fiction” back when Obama was president. Apparently something changed, though, when Trump became president, causing positive unemployment reports to no longer be a “hoax.”
“We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done. After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.” -Donald Trump
While there have been new manufacturing companies launched under Donald Trump, it’s not true to say that “12,000 new factories” were opened. According to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, fewer than 11,000 new manufacturing establishments came on-line since Trump took office. And, more importantly, most of those weren’t what anyone would consider factories. In fact, more than 8,000 of these entities employ five or fewer people. Furthermore, according to economic analyst Steven Rattner, the manufacturing sector, relatively speaking, is now the smallest that it’s been in 72 years. So, when Trump talks of a “manufacturing renaissance,” he’s lying. Here’s a chart from Rattner.
“From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy — slashing a record number of job-killing regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts.” -Donald Trump
They weren’t “record setting tax cuts.” As the New York Times points out, relative to the size of the economy, Trump’s was the 8th largest in history. “President Trump’s tax cuts were initially estimated at $1.5 trillion over 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office, an estimate that has since grown to around $2 trillion,” the New York Times reported. “But those figures are nowhere close to a record tax cut. As a share of the economy, Mr. Trump’s cuts rank around No. 8, according to Treasury Department data.” More importantly, though, they didn’t help the economy as much as we were told that they would, and they didn’t pay for themselves, as we were promised.
So, no, Trump’s tax cuts did not “revive” the U.S. economy. And it’s also not true that he “inherited a mess,” as he likes to claim. The truth is, he inherited an economy in recovery, and that recovery has continued… And it’s continued in large part due to the irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy noted above, and the administration’s insistence on growing the federal deficit.
Here’s an interesting factoid from Forbes: “From the day after Obama’s election in November 2008 until Trump’s election eight years later the S&P 500 rose 113%.” So, again, no, he didn’t inherit a mess. Not by a long shot. And Obama did it without growing the federal deficit to over $1 trillion, which is what Donald Trump has done.
If you want to understand what’s actually happening, I’d encourage you to read Paul Krugman’s most recent op-ed in the Times, which explains how the Republicans, under the guise of fiscal responsibility hobbled the Obama recovery, and then went on an all-out spending spree under Trump, in order to irresponsibly juice the economy. [As Krugman points out, “we’re getting as much deficit stimulus now as in 2012, when the unemployment rate was 8%.”]
“Since my election, U.S. stock markets have soared 70 percent, adding more than $12 trillion to our nation’s wealth, transcending anything anyone believed was possible. This is a record.” -Donald Trump
The S&P 500 and the Dow Jones industrial average aren’t up by 70%. They’re up by about 60% each. And, again, the growth rate was higher under Obama. I know I just said this, but it bears repeating… “From the day after Obama’s election in November 2008 until Trump’s election eight years later the S&P 500 rose 113%.” So if the stock market is up by 60% under Trump, that’s approximately half of what it rose under Obama.
I could go on – there’s a lot more to say – but Arlo is still down with the stomach flu, and I told him that I’d watch Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps with him. And I love him more that I love you. [Yesterday we watched North By Northwest.]
124 Comments
I can’t mention North By Northwest without noting that, to my knowledge, it’s the only Hitchcock film that mentions Ypsilanti.
As long as we’re on the subject of Trump’s lie about inheriting an economy in crisis, here’s Mike Bloomberg’s new add… Bloomberg isn’t my favorite candidate, but I love this framing of the issue: “Trump inherited this economy just like he inherited his wealth. Yet he takes credit for both.”
Yeah, this Obama economy rocks.
Aloha MM, and you didn’t even mention the abysmal work force participation rate which has barely returned to 2012 levels, which was before the Obama “ recovery “ really got going. Also you didn’t mention the huge ag support he has given the agricultural sectors that his tariffs smashed—more money to prop up a segment of the economy he broke than was spent on the ARRA in 08-10.
Yeah, there’s a lot that I didn’t get to. I didn’t talk about the wages corrected for inflation. I didn’t talk about the coal jobs that were promised. I didn’t talk about the fact that the majority of the tax cuts went toward stock buy-backs. But hopefully I hit on enough to make my point, which is that we’re being lied to.
Well done HW.
https://youtu.be/UjymI5kcwAo
Whoo, that was fire, Flakes. No movie genre I like better. Looks like one I have not seen.
Oh yeah I have seen that a long time ago. Great classic to revisit.
Obama had good numbers and they called it a hoax. The same economic trends have continued and now they see it as a Trump miracle, and talk of the mess he inherited from Obama, with no evidence to back it up. This is a perfect illustration of the madness in America.
Treasury Secretary Assistant Sec. Monica Crowley defends cuts to entitlements in Trump’s new 2021 budget proposal: “The president also understands that Washington’s habit of out of control spending without consequence has to be stopped.”
He ran up a trillion dollar deficit giving tax breaks to the rich and now they’re saying social security and Medicare need to be cut.
You guys said Trump would tank the economy. Now you have to change it to “Well Obama’s economy was almost as good and he did it first!”
Give him time, HW…
Chickens have t come home to roost yet. Takes 6 years or so.
Once he cuts entitlements and middle class tax cuts end and trade wars escalate (if they do) and deficit impacts plus whatever cap gains and estate tax cuts the GOZ are cooking (they are always cooking them), then we will see this has been a giant giveaway to the wealthiest. And even the very rich understand that our economy (and their wealth) is not sustainable without a thriving and growing middle class. They can only extract their wealth for so long.
None of this matters because the Dems are getting nastier and nastier and will succeed, no matter who wins, the primary, in alienating half the Dem voters and killing turnout, while the GOP fall in line behind a guy half of them hate.
Sanders will probably get the nod, but his supporters will alienate half the Dem and independent voters by then. They will simply lost steam. I very much want a progressive president but man, they are just assholes who imagine they can shamed woo people to their position. They don’t take ppl where they are; They attack. Their righteousness is naive and alienating. They assume they have already won over most of the country. Evidence of insularity.
The derision and suspicion of other Dens has already begun. Last go around it took until the NY primary for them to get truly nasty.
I don’t know who that’s hopeful for. Hope is what we should be running on. And Policies.
Populism sucks.
Wondering, just by the by, whether we have any Flat Earthers here among our Qanon, Anti-vax, deep state and 9-11 truthers? Seems worth asking as I try to plumb the depths of MM Commentators’ delusions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcNKIGAodj8
If Sanders loses to Trump in the general by a greater margin electoral votes than HRC did or by any margin of the popular vote, will the Bros still blame Clinton?
Jean seems less crazy when she makes fun of flat-earthers. It’s a good strategy.
If you can’t argue facts, equate your opponents with flat-earthers. It’s A good strategy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/great-affordability-crisis-breaking-america/606046/
Last we all saw, HW showed how some of the things Jean said about vaccinations were just flat out lies. I guess that is why she’s now decided to bring up flat-earther kooks hoping to equate HW with them. It’s a strategy that works with morons, so it’s worth a try here, I guess.
iRobert– I suggest you read again. HW said states mandated vaccinations; they do not. They require them in order for children to attend public school. There are many alternatives to public schools, many supported by the school system, some, like on line schooling or homeschooling are free.
There is no mandate for vaccinations except as I noted, during an outbreak and limited to the individual districts effected.
Please go back and tell me what I said about vaccines or anti-vaxxers that were
flat out lies.’
I’ll wait.
Vaccinations for public school students are mandatory. When did I say more than that? Use quotes. You lie every day.
iRobert. HW never made any good points or proved that anything JH has said is a lie.
I have started telling Sanders supporters who are being jerks that it is ok with me because I am old enough that I will probably be able to live well for the rest of my life no matter what the climate does so I am not going to argue with them about my opinion of Sanders because it doesn’t matter. If they want to keep with this scorched earth campaign because they don’t understand that they are going to need the supporters of the other campaigns to vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, so be it. If they want to say that they won’t vote for the nominee if it isn’t Sanders, it doesn’t matter to me. Like the people who didn’t vote for HRC, they can fuck the planet as much as they want and I will be dead before the worst of it hits us
Actually I blew away the illusion that vaccines have a history of safety. Far away. Easily.
Sanders doesn’t have a chance of getting the nomination.
Turn in tomorrow night.
HW, no. You have not. You have stated that but never have given a convincing argument. You are not the sharpest tool in the shed regardless of how you think about yourself.
I find it interesting though that so many of the men here seem to have deep problems with women to the point where iRobert actually seems to think that HW has made good points when he hasn’t and FF thinks that it is ok for men for bully women but cries bloody murder if a woman says something slightly snarky to a man. *shrug* I guess it is just the sort of everyday sexism a woman has to deal with. carry on
You have to refute the research I posted then. Otherwise you are just spewing personal propaganda. “Nnnhhh, ur so stuuupid…”
HW, no one has to refute the “research” you posted. You haven’t posted anything worth the bother.
“I find it interesting though that so many of the men here seem to have deep problems with women to the point where iRobert actually seems to think that HW has made good points when he hasn’t and FF thinks that it is ok for men for bully women but cries bloody murder if a woman says something slightly snarky to a man.”
Do you think that makes sense even on an internal basis? It’s wild how dumb and belligerent you are. Good thing you have no ability to effectively externalize your hatred.
Her Exalted Celestial Majesty, Lynne is far above the earthly sciences.
Here you go HW. A the refutation Requieed is here, because science.:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.html
Re: “Good thing you have no ability to effectively externalize your hatred.”
The best you can do is type hateful things on barkmaynard and vote for Hillary Clinton.
I don’t have any reason to conclude you are a woman, Lynne. I suspect you are, but of course I can’t be certain. Also, are you certain I am a man? Are you certain FF is? How about HW? Could you just be believing our suggestions as to what gender we are? What proof are you going on to arrive at your conclusions?
I was the last one here to find out you are not black. Since finding out you’re just another privileged white person, I haven’t been as interested in anything you say. I’m still hoping we can get some diversity here.
Where do they refute SV40 in the polio vaccine?
HW is a lying dog faced pony soldier!
Jean is once again handing out work assignments so she can portray herself as the wise teacher. That’s another great strategy for a person who is incapable of persuading with facts.
So, when you’re done assigning us all gender identities, Lynne, maybe you could do the homework Jean has assigned me.
Why do we always have to talk about Jean Henry?
I don’t get it. Why the obsession?
Isn’t Mayor Pete a lot more interesting?
Yes, Sad. He is. Far more.
Mayo Pete is in this race at least through Super Tuesday. That’s quite an accomplishment, especially for a small town mayor.
What do you think about Chance the Rapper’s claims about him. Have you seen what any of it is based upon. Is there any truth to the claims?
By the way, are we all deliberately avoiding Mark’s topics? I mean, I think that’s a funny way to disrespect him, but sometimes I feel like we shouldn’t.
Is Chance backing Mayor Pete? I googled to no avail.
Do tell IRobert, I know you have your finger on the pulse of urban America.
I really think Pete is going all the way. If not that $50 I gave him was a big waste of money.
“I find it interesting… FF thinks that it is ok for men for bully women but cries bloody murder if a woman says something slightly snarky to a man.”—Lynne
I find it interesting that Lynne has the habit of finding things interesting when those “interesting” things have no relationship to reality outside of the self-created notions she has manufactured out of her own assumptions. As I asked in the other thread today: What makes Lynne think I have a hard time “handling” the things Lynne and Jean say? I think Lynne looks extremely foolish almost every time she writes something on this blog. It would be great if she would pull herself out of ignorance (at some point) but until that happens I am content feeling amazed (and entertained) by her foolishness.
I scream bloody murder though Lynne? Please show me where I am screaming bloody murder. One more time: I think it is great that Lynne shamelessly( and with low self awareness) displays her thought processes, thinly veiled assumptions, and tactics for everyone to see. Lynne is providing a valuable service!
FF has lead me to start reading this Australian philosopher.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born
iRobert, It is true that I don’t really know anyone’s race/gender here with certainty or anything other than how people portray themselves. I have even often wondered if HW is really what he says or not. For all I know, he is a black woman making a caricature of a Trump-loving white man.
I can say this, you are unlikely to get diversity here as long as the misogyny and racism that is regularly seen in the comments here continues to exist. JH and I are very different people but are the same in that we have a bit of a masculine style of argument which is why I am pretty sure we are the only women who will regularly comment here openly as women. It probably doesn’t hurt that we are both white.
FF, yawn. I can’t even read your posts anymore without feeling a bit nauseous.
Of course, Trump is outright lying about these statistics (as he lies about everything else), but the big problem is with the nature of these statistics themselves, and how we have come to receive them (and often trust them) so uncritically.
As Mark points out, the “Unemployment” rate only measures people who are actively seeking work … but millions of people we consider “employed” are working one or more low-wage, part-time jobs; or working full time without a reasonable wage, or basic benefits.
Likewise, GDP. What does measuring mere economic activity (wealth transfers) have to do with anything? If my house catches fire, I get burned, and end up wrecking my car on the way to the hospital, this all a “win” for GDP (firefighters and contractors get paid, my collision shop gets paid, doctors get paid), but how has my life (or our society) actually improved?
Yes – here in America, the unemployment rate is at record lows, GDP at record highs, and by some measures we have never been “better off.”
Yet, polls show that most people feel their children will not/do not have the same opportunities they had. Many people are working harder, for lower wages and less security, than they have in decades. Millions of people live one car repair or medical bill away from financial ruin. We have declining life expectancy, record obesity, an opioid crisis, and an epidemic of violence in our society. Meanwhile, we are blithely destroying the air, soil, and water upon which all life depends.
So tell me, what good does having “record-low unemployment” or “record-high GDP” do if we live in a society that is demonstrably less well off in many of the ways that really matter?
It is long past time to stop paying attention to (and believing) these so-called statistics issued by governments and corporations, and time to take a good look around, and ask yourself: Are you, your family, your neighbors, your community, your nation … actually better off?
“the misogyny and racism that is regularly seen in the comments here”
Use quotes or you are full of shit. You are one of the main sources of racism, sexism and general bigotry here and it would be easy to produce quotes to support that.
FWIW, there are other approaches worth knowing about and perhaps considering.
For example: The “Gross National Happiness” model which has been adopted by the tiny mountain kingdom of Bhutan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness
That sounds interesting , Sad. Can you recommend a specific essay or chapter in a book? If you have not seen True Detective yet I highly recommend it—apparently Mccounaghy’s character was based on Benatar’s writing.
The MM.com community has its share of elite nihilists so it is good to understand them better. The wisdom of Silenas has been expressed, in various forms, by our old friend IL. Lynne and Jean seem to enjoy the destruction of meaning on almost a daily basis.
I think that there is a lot of evidence that some people believe: A life without nihilism is not worth living. I don’t agree with it but it is interesting and makes me wonder what it is that keeps these people alive. Very strange.
It’s good to see a thoughtful comment, Demetrius. Thank you.
Sad, Chance the Rapper seems to suggest Mayo Pete is a CIA plant in the presidential race. I’m surprised you haven’t heard or read about that. Chance the Rapper is way more widely known than Mayo Pete.
I haven’t looked at the details, but I thought you might, and then offer refutation.
Mayo Pete looks like he’s going to come in a strong second place in New Hampshire. But that is just what the publicly released polls are saying. It’s hard to say if any are trustworthy. The primary could also be rigged again, like many say it was in 2016.
I wouldn’t call it a”masculine style” of writing. I would call it a toxic-masculine style of thinking—that is often present in the communications of people who specifically feel an exaggerated sense of entitlement. It is a style of thinking that most men and women choose to avoid, in 2020, because they realize it makes them sound gross and foolish.
FF, you realize that you have no credibility on that subject right? I mean on toxic masculinity. You cannot spew the toxic crap you do here and then point the finger at someone else and expect anyone to take you seriously. I honestly think your problem with me and JH is that we don’t soften our tone in the feminine ways you are used to with women expressing themselves. You very clearly are uncomfortable with strong outspoken women in general. I assume because you are one of those weak men who are threatened by losing status as women and minorities slowly get power. I bet that #metoo stuff happening even in the Trump era is terrifying to you. You will see more of that though even if Trump wins re-election because the Trump view is a minority view actually. He is only in the Whitehouse because of an electoral college technicality. The culture though, always follows the majority and the majority is changing to be more inclusive. I.e. there is a majority that is a coalition of minorities who are all working together to make sure everyone has an equal voice. You just are not happy with an equal voice. We have a long way to go but the direction seems clear. As a culture, we are getting more inclusive of different voices and are less prone to amplifying the voices of white men over others.
Demetrius, that is a very important point. Neither GDP or unemployment rates tell the full picture and people really are hurting now even when those numbers look better. This is due to the choices we have made though, especially when voting. A lot of this is tied to Reagan’s policies as it can really take several decades to see the full results of any macroeconomic policy. The good news though is that we can do better. We have to have a blue congress and a dem in the Whitehouse though to even have a chance. Let’s all work together.
It’s plain toxic. Using their terms though: if one accepts the concept of toxic masculinity they must acknowledge the corollary: toxic femininity. It’s the deceiving, emotionally manipulating, anti-reason approach to life. Basically all the core maynardites exhibit it whether they are male or female.
Quote FF’s most toxic statement you can find or you are not only full of shit, you are a major dickhead.
In my case I was supremely tolerant of your abuse for months before I said one thing to you. You established a pattern of abuse. I asked you to be nice. I wasn’t trying to fight anyone, only talk. You wouldn’t stop though so according to my ethical standard I began to add a little sauce to what I was serving up. Now you cry about the big meanie head, HW.
iRobert, yes, people do like to say that the primary was rigged in 2016 and it is a tough thing. On the one hand, there were valid issues with the party that need to be addressed but on the other hand, HRC won the primary by such a landslide that the constant suggestions that she cheated to win may be part of why we have Trump. Will that happen again? Can the problems within the party be addressed in a way that doesn’t ruin a left-leaning candidate’s chances of winning?
Re: “toxic femininity. It’s the deceiving, emotionally manipulating, anti-reason approach to life”
I would say that the view that women are deceiving, emotionally manipulating, and not reasonable to the point of being anti-reason is a pretty common misogynistic view.
I don’t think most women display it. I clearly stated some men have it too. In case you didn’t know: not everyone is like you and Jean and IL and Barky and several others here.
Hell HW has been saying Mayor Pete was a CIA plant since the beginning.
Could it be rigged for Mayor Pete?
Please,please say yes.
You have a lot convenient assumptions, Lynne.
Again, I have a problem with your arguments because they are dumb arguments. So dumb they don’t even qualify as arguments, imo.
I’m Sorry.
If you want to change you need to stop assuming your arguments are something more than what they are—dumb. There is no other hidden/ petty reason for objecting to you. The reason I bother though is that I think there are many Lynne’s out there who have been trained to think the way Lynne thinks. Lynne-type-think needs to be exposed so it will die out as quickly as possible, IMO.
https://mobile.twitter.com/marksimoneny/status/1226635053876285440?s=21&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
mayor pete is so cool
check out his youth support
https://www.teens4pete.com/
pop·u·lism
noun
a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
Yes, clearly populism sucks. Idiot. What a crazy idea. I think it’s hilarious that Jean and Lynne are possibly going to have to vote for Sanders after their years of bitter, ignorant ranting about him. But they will. Bernie ho’s
IROBERT– You accused me of ‘flat out lies’ about vaccines and anti-vaxxers, which HW supposedly caught me in. I asked you to back up that statement. That’s not ‘homework.’ It’s a reasonable request. If Hw did as you say, it should be easy enough to verfiy.
Bob– some history for you:
https://origins.osu.edu/article/american-populism-and-persistence-paranoid-style
Warren is also a populist, Bob. She’s just less corrupt. I have spent years here talking about how populism is a form of political campaign that can be corrupted in unique ways just like corporatist campaigns can be corrupted in their ways.
I have argued that we are highly aware of the way big-money influence on political campaigns can corrupt them. We have become, however, nose blind to the stench of corrupt populist campaigns, which play to divisiveness and often legitimate political outrage. In order to maintain momentum populist political campaigns must continue to foment outrage and divisiveness, They will often go deeply negative and hyperbolic to do so. This is what Bernie and Trump do. Sowing the seeds of suspicion re the functionality/legitimacy of our democracy and of the 4th estate are dangerous games that both Trump and Bernie play. Warren never complains about the media or questions the legitimacy of elections. I don’t believe she is corrupt. Give her time. The political process seems to bring out the worst in all candidates.
Trump is uniting Americans. Notice his support among minorities is rising. Significant percentages of his rally attendees are Democrats now. Your politicians are the ones who play to division. Hillary Clinton comes to mind. “Basket of Deplorables”
Trump supporters cannot credibly criticize anyone for playing to division.
Trump is a populist. So is Bernie. So is Warren. Reagan via Atwater used populist strategies but in a more limited way (the ‘welfare queen’ is the standard example) It’s a style of campaigning not a political perspective.
When Trump talks about immigrants from Mexico and below bringing with them crime and stealing our jobs, that’s populism. There just has to be a bad guy.
Bernie’s ‘Not me, Us’ slogan is a grassroots approach not populism. Unfortunately his campaign rhetoric in stump speeches is the opposite. ‘Us’ is defined in opposition to the establishment, be it Dem party (even state level) or the press or the moneyed elite. The elite then encompass much of the country. ‘Not me, Us’ in the context of his larger campaign, becomes his nice way of saying ‘you are with us or against us.’
Lynne apparently believes she decides who can and can not credibly criticize.
Lynne exhibits very strange behavior.
People are increasingly dividing themselves into two rough categories: Establishment Dems Vs. everyone else. Is it not a good sign that people on the left and right are aligning themselves against the corrupt-dem-establishment? Is it also not a good sign that there is a healthy developing skepticism of MSM as the propaganda arm of the Dem establishment?
A judgment about Dems is crossing party lines. Labeling a shared judgment about the corrupt corporate Dems and their propaganda as “populism” is a defense mechanism. The realignment of people against establishment Dems is not good for people like Jean, Lynne and Mark. It is a bad sign for them.
They should be very worried about coming up elections. They should also be worried how they will be judged by history because a realignment certainly seems to be happening.
Why do we have to wait for history to judge people when you post twelve times a time with your judgements? Do you think you could be wrong?
Looks like Mayor Pete is going to have an upset win in New Hampshire!
Not if Joe and his Legion of Doom has anything to say about it, Sad.
https://twitter.com/FuctupMike/status/1226944429879169027
Sad,
When I make a judgment public I am naturally leaving my judgments open to criticism. If you have something specific you want to criticize then you should do it. Doing so would be part of a normal exchange of ideas, imo.
HW beat me to it, Jean. HW reiterated the points on which he challenged you before I even saw your response. Whenever you assign homework, HW does it and turns it in before any of the rest of us even get started. He’s the best student here, making the teacher look foolish over and over…self appointed teacher, I should say.
By the way, why is it okay for Jean and Lynne to hand out gender assignments here? What is it based upon?
Re: “Lynne apparently believes she decides who can and can not credibly criticize”
Yes, FF. I do believe that I get to decide who is credible and who is not when I form my own opinions. That you even think for a second that I should not be the person to make that determination for myself is pretty sexist.
iRobert, usually people reveal their gender here. The only person who hasn’t and who has asked to be referred to with gender-neutral pronouns, as far as I know, is EOS. If there is anyone else besides them, I will happily comply.
Of course Lynne *CAN* apply her general judgment of a groups credibility to specific criticisms made by individuals who are a part of that group. That is not in question though because she in fact does it. The question is: *Ought* Lynne take her general judgment about a group’s credibility and apply that judgment to a specific member of that group’s particular criticism about something specific?
Lynne’s general judgment about a group’s credibility (even if her judgment is generally true) does not say anything about the veracity of a specific criticism levied by someone who is a member of the group.
Lynne is guilty of using the Tu quoque fallacy here.
Educate yourself Lynne. This is basic stuff. Here is a cartoon for you: https://youtu.be/VFYkCclssbg
I don’t concern myself with what Jean or Lynne say. White people are always trying to boss everyone around.
FF, you actually are only displaying YOUR ignorance here, fwiw. I never stated that the criticism was false, just that someone who is worse is not in a position to criticize. So no logical fallacy there. Nice try though. For instance, it is true that Dems are divisive but when a Trump supporter makes that criticism it exposes them as a hypocrite and thus makes them not very credible in their criticism. I get it that is a nuance that is too difficult for someone like you to understand though.
What is interesting about iRobert is that he doesn’t concern himself with what Jean or I say because we are white women but he sure seems to concern himself with what HW and FF say. I assume that is because although they present themselves here as white, they also present themselves here as men. Or maybe I am wrong and he doesn’t really concern himself with what they say either although even so, he doesn’t seem to feel the need to publically state that. It feels pretty sexist to me.
“I never stated that the criticism was false, just that someone who is worse is not in a position to criticize. So no logical fallacy there.”—Lynne
No Lynne you are not being nuanced you are displaying your confusion and lack of understanding. The entire point of then Tu quoque fallacy is to illustrate that the hypocrite is in the exact same “position to criticize” (your phrase) as the non-hypocrite. (It is sometimes called the “hypocrisy fallacy“. ) That is, a particular criticism in a specific situation is what ought to be evaluated regardless of the status of the person doing the criticizing. Your claim that you were not evaluating any specific criticism makes zero sense because you said your own opinions were often a result of your judgment of another’s credibility when you said: “I do believe that I get to decide who is credible and who is not when I form my own opinions.”
Of course what you are doing is even worse than committing a simple fallacy, which is obvious when it is pointed out that you are essentially admitting that your opinions are derived from the credibility of not just the status of a particular individuals but rather your opinions are often derived from your judgment of the credibility of *GROUPS* of people.
You employ the same logic as insane racists Lynne. It is all a very normal result of your bigot-logic thought processes, imo. You really should investigate/ think about what I am saying—if any part of you would like to escape the cycle of bigotry you all too willingly participate in.
It’s 2020 it’s time to let go of your bigotry, Lynne.
The only problem and it is a major one is you believing something doesn’t make it true. That’s your problem in a nutshell.
The only ancestors I have mentioned are not white so not sure what makes you say that. It’s okay to be white though of course. I think to hate white men or any sex/race combination is to be a racist, sexist bigot. That’s what you are from my perspective. You have to twist yourself in knots to explain why it is okay to be the same thing as what you hate but towards a different group.
FF, I guess it is a good thing that I don’t agree with your view there. I think it illustrates how uninformed you actually are on subjects such as logical fallacy. I don’t think you know what you are talking about and thus are not in a position to judge anyone on that subject.
HW, so you are saying that you are not perceived as being a white man in your real life? Having ancestors who are POC does not necessarily make one a POC FWIW. If you are a POC than I am sorry but will point out that in our culture, whiteness and maleness are considered the default, i.e. in the absence of that information, most people will make the assumption that the person is a white male. Unless of course, it is a story about a crime, in which case often the assumption is that the perpetrator is a black man.
I don’t hate white men btw. Most of the white men in my real life are amazing people who have worked hard to be decent people who treat others well. I just recognize that in our culture, people are socialized differently depending on things like their race and gender and that often the way white men, in particular, are socialized is to assume things like that their words carry more weight.
“The only problem and it is a major one is you believing something doesn’t make it true. That’s your problem in a nutshell.”—HW
Wow. HW just gave you a huge and easy to understand gift, Lynne. If you recognize it as such I think you have an opportunity to really grow as a person. As is, you are not fooling anybody except for yourself. It is time to make a fresh start, Lynne. You are middle aged right? You simply can’t live another day like this. Walk away from the darkness. Walk toward the light! You can do it!
“HW, so you are saying that you are not perceived as being a white man in your real life?”
No, I’m not. I’m not saying anything about that. You said I present myself as white here. I wonder why you say things you can’t back up.
HW, Statistically, as a Trump supporter, you are way more likely to be white than a POC. If I had to bet, the odds would be in my favor.
So supporting Trump means you are representing yourself as white.
Maybe HW is correct.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/11/804941367/nigeria-may-be-part-of-trumps-travel-ban-but-nigerians-tend-to-trust-trump
Like I said, Lynne, you and Jean feel you can assign everyone here their gender and race. Apparently your assignments are based upon the opinions people express and whether you agree with them or not. How is that okay?
Sad, your Mayo Pete is doing well in these first two states. Now he’s looking better for Super Tuesday.
It’s pretty impressive. I really look forward to seeing how he can do in Nevada and South Carolina.
But will the Bernie Bros ever learn to love him?
Lynne and Jean will say any crazy thing if they believe it will help them avoid the appearance of losing an argument. Lynne and Jean are two of the proudest white ladies you will ever meet.
iRobert, everyone tends to assign people gender and race. You yourself thought I was a black woman AND you also admit that you value my opinion less now that you know that I am of a different race. So perhaps you can answer your question about how or if it is ok for yourself?
It doesn’t really matter all that much in HW’s case. He is a moron regardless of his race although since he has aligned himself with white nationalists, it seems especially odd if he is a POC. Kanye odd.
Lynne,
Please stop with all the lies. HW never aligned himself with white nationalists.
Uh oh. Lynne has difficulty recognizing when someone is mocking her. The worst part is she finds it impossible to understand why someone would mock her in the first place.
https://youtu.be/WaaANll8h18
EOS, I appreciate that you don’t like that reality but EVERY Trump voter has aligned themselves with white nationalists because Trump has aligned himself with white nationalists.
Hey FF, if you say something in the woods and there is no one there to hear you, are you still wrong?
Lynne calls a person “odd” when an individual does not conform to the same points of view that are assigned to the group—which that individual person happened to be assigned to.
If that is your reality then you are delusional and should seek professional help.
In need of a good laugh? Here’s Trump’s acting OMB director Russell Vought refusing to say under oath that millions of jobs were added under President Obama for fear of upsetting his boss.
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1227642550649081856?s=20
Latest Q is a repeat of an oldie but a goodie:
[Re_drop]
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled/owned by (6) corporations?
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political ideology?
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension/arm of a political party?
Fact becomes fiction?
Fiction becomes fact?
When does news become propaganda?
Identity creation?
How does the average person, who is under constant financial stress (by design), find time to research and discern fact v fiction?
Majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand ‘news’ name?
Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the ‘majority/mainstream viewpoint’ in fear of being isolated and/or shunned?
‘Mainstream’ is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion].
[If majority of people believe ‘x’ then ‘x’ must be validated / true]
Why do ‘mainstream’ media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or catch phrases?
Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions?
Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if heard over-and-over again by different ‘trusted’ sources?
Do ‘echo chamber’ tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being discussed?
Threat to intellectual freedom?
Would control over[of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Read again – digest.
Would control over[of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Logical thinking.
Why, after the election of 2016, did [D]’s and media corps jumpstart a [coordinated & planned] divisive blitz intended to create falsehoods re: illegitimacy of election, character assassination of POTUS through sexism, racism, every other ‘ism’?
Pre/post 2016 election?
Why were violent [masked] terror orgs such as Antifa immediately created/funded?
Why were these orgs tasked w/ immediate intimidation/shut down of any pro-POTUS rally[s] and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized to counter and silence pro-POTUS rally[s] and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized which divided people into sex/gender, race, [ism]?
When you control the levers of news dissemination, you control the narrative.
Control of the narrative = power
When you are blind, what do you see?
They want you divided.
Divided by religion.
Divided by sex.
Divided by political affiliation.
Divided by class.
When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those ‘different’ from you, not those responsible [controllers].
Divided you are weak.
Divided you pose no threat to their control.
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or stable [livestock kept – sheep].
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
“Free thought” is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
THIS REPRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Q
Whoa
I wonder if Mayor Pete has seen this?
Aloha Question for Q , Why has Trump demonized any and everyone that disagrees with his belief regardless of how objectively false it might be ?
Examples
Inauguration crowd, news media in general, Mueller
Pretty sure I have dispelled all those claims in the past; weak list of demonizations.
One can admit that Russian’s interferes and still question what Mueller was doing for 2.5 years. In general I don’t think Trump demonized Mueller. I think he agrees with his findings. What “objectively false” belief is Trump holding onto that goes against Mueller’s findings?
Ironic to hear demonizing lefties complain about demonization. It’s like “Demonize Trump Demonize Trump supporters Demonize Trump Demonize Trump supporters Demonize Trump Demonize Trump supporters….Trump’s a Demonizer!”
Macro
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-campaign-new-hampshire-rally-attendance-25-4-democrats-17-didnt-vote-in-2016
Micro
https://medium.com/@karlyn/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07
Aloha, Looks like St. Nancy and the Democratic House also disagree with St. Ruth. Getting closer and closer to that day when we have a constitutional protection of equal rights for all regardless of sex.
Despite the bad things that happen some good still bubbles up. Thank the gods for the women and men who preserved dispute the liberal naysayers.
wobblie, are you ever able to talk about women without being an a-hole? Oh yeah. Gabbard but I assume you only like her because she is younger and conventionally beautiful. *rolls eyes*
Usually people who have reasons for saying things enjoy explaining their reasons when asked. Hmmm.
Could you explain that?
I asked Wobble to give his reasons for his statement. He did not respond.
Aloha, Pelosi and Ginsberg are two saints of the liberal establishment. To criticize any action or statement by them is blasphemy.
I liked Liz Warren until she sold out to the Clintonites. AOC is spot on. I would love to have Nera Tanden be my senator. Kelpie Wilson is doing some of the most important work on the planet. The revolutionary Kurdish—Woman’s Protection Units are clearly some of the bravest most courageous folks on the planet and deserve all of our support.
I just don’t like upper class woman who think progress ended because they are doing ok on the inheritance from daddy. They are like middle class boys living at home with mommy to me. Incremental change is simply another way of telling poor woman to suck it up because I hot mine.
Got not hot
Aloha. In my experience rich powerful white woman are not really any different than rich powerful white men. They both tell me what we cannot have, all the while protecting privilege.
wobblie, Yes, it is true that both Pelosi and Ginsberg are very much admired by many but it doesn’t feel cult-like in a way that might warrant the “St” designation. It is possible that people are reacting to your criticisms based on what you are saying rather than because they think it is blasphemous to ever be critical of them. It is also true that they are well off. But so is Tulsi Gabbard albeit she isn’t quite a millionaire I don’t think unlike Bernie Sanders or say Jill Stein. I haven’t heard you say mean things about them. Perhaps what I am seeing is a bias against the Democratic Party in general. Goodness knows I know one or two people who will never vote for a Democrat even though they are left-wing themselves because they refuse to accept the reality that if you lean left and vote third party, you are helping right-wing candidates get elected.
I think Elizabeth Warren genuinely cares about people FWIW. It feels weird to me that your Hillary Hate is so strong that it extends to anyone who works within the existing DNC structure. I see it as pragmatism. Perhaps the reason you hated Hillary so much is that she is so much a part of the Democratic Party? Interestingly, I am finding that I am disappointed with AOC because she doesn’t seem interested in working to change things in the party and just seems to want to harm it. I would love to talk to her about it though. Maybe that is just what I am seeing and she is actually working hard from the inside to make changes which is something I can respect.
I adore AOC but am very confused at why she keeps saying we need to vote for people of color and immigrants and the formerly incarcerated etc etc while stumping for Bernie Sanders. It dumbfounds me that the young are so dense to his old hippie dude schtick. From what I have heard he has a ling history of disinterest in what he referred to as ‘special interest groups’ a la Reagan until very recently when he realized the WWC alone wouldn’t get him elected. I get it that many people of color, especially the young, think the class issue comes first, and that a movement for class equity will lift all boats. I have been around the block on too many progressive movements to believe that is true. I like the people behind Sanders a lot more than Sanders. That’s a switch from the last go around. Bernie Sanders is a lot like to old white dudes here who find multiple perspectives inconvenient,
Aloha Lynne, I have had the impression that you are much younger than me. As such you lack some historical perspective. If I am a Democrat it is in the Wallace(Henry), Perkins (Francis) Kennedy (Robert), Jackson (Jesse) wing of the party.
The Clintons and the Democratic Leadership Conference that they championed seized control of the levers of power in the party and turned it into a champion of Republican issues. Bill with the complete support of Hillary destroyed one of the three legs of our social safety net, Aid for Families of Dependent Children. You might try reading some about Francis Perkins (a great American) who designed our social security system.
The Clintons and their ilk threw generations of poor woman under the bus all in an attempt to curry favor with people like Newt Gingrich.
I have no doubt Hillary would do the same to achieve personal political advantage.
So no I will never vote for a Clinton or anyone who sales themselves to them. They have proven to be enemies of poor folks (the vast majority of whom are women, even if you are not—poor I mean).
Every proposal Sanders puts out there will benefit poor women and I am for it.
I am aware that Clinton threw poor people under the bus. He also was sexually inappropriate with an intern. I would not vote for Bill Clinton in a primary. IIRC I voted for Jerry Brown in 92. Clinton won that primary in a landslide. The country was very conservative then. And like it or not Clinton was better than Bush would have been. Let’s not forget either that Bill only won because a third party candidate split the conservative vote. I don’t regret voting for Bill Clinton that year because not doing so would only have helped the other two candidates.
Guess what though. Hillary is not Bill.
Aloha Lynne, but she stood by her man and has utilized every political connection he had to advance herself. Flip side of same coin. Her personal political advantage is more important than anything else— been obvious for decades.
FWIW I hated Bill Clinton from the get go. He was the natural politician. Hillary was ambitious but not as ambitious as Bill or Sanders clearly, yet no one faults them for their ambition. It never occurred to me that Hillary, whose positions evolved a great deal between 1994 and 2016 (but who was always left of Bill) , would be a president in any way like her husband. They are very clearly distinct humans and she has her own substantial professional track record.
She shouldn’t have had him campaign for her 2016 run then. Like it or not she is trading on her last name.
Yeah Wobblie. She apparently loves her husband anyways despite his flaws and has chosen a path of forgiveness in her personal life. What a bitch! *rolls eyes*
Whatever. I think your Hillary hate says a LOT more about who you are as a person than it says about her. Like you seem to think that it was worse that she “stood by her man” than it was that you yourself threw women under the bus in 2016. I guess I have a different view.
One Trackback
[…] « Exploring Trump’s “Manifesto of Mistruths”: Is our economy really “t… […]