[Phantom Hoover]

I laid out my position pretty earnestly in this post: don't talk to Goober, he's an ideologue who just wants to hear himself talk. That was an attempt at making the place better, you see?

[The E]

And your posts here, here, here? Were they too trying to make this place better?

I can tell you that, from my POV, they weren't. They were just pure snark, expressions of incredulity that a topic continues even after you have declared it a lost cause.

I find that sort of participation somewhere between annoying and disappointing. Annoying, because you're declaring something a lost cause that doesn't have to be and **** up the thread because it can't get any worse, right? And disappointing, because I know you are capable of doing better, or at least keep the incredulity and snark and ****post to #bp, where we can laugh about it and move on.

If the problem in GD is a lack of good posts, then why do you **** up threads like this?

[Aesaar]

Don't really think ****posts are what makes GD bad.  The biggest complaints I ever had about GD were about people like maslo.  Very good at putting effort into their posts.  Also very good at rephrasing the same point as though saying it slightly differently will somehow undo the fact that their point has been thoroughly discredited.

The problem in GD isn't lack of good posts.  Most threads have good posts.  The problem with GD is people who can't be made to realize they're making no sense and double-down when presented with actual evidence they're wrong.  As though believing hard enough in something will somehow make it true.

But fine, I'll shut up unless I'm in the mood to write something more serious.

[Goober5000]

I'd much rather you left the constant rhetorical ignorance-vomit out of HLP entirely, rather than dragging down the average quality of a discussion in a subforum which already has an abysmally low average discussion quality.

Facts are rhetoric now?  History is ignorance?  Disagreeing with someone is dragging down the quality of discussion?

Yes, let's take a look at the party program.

But let's also take a look how much of that program was ever put into practice, shall we? Because judging a political philosophy by its ideals is one thing, but the real test is what happens when said ideals meet reality.

Assessing what happens when ideals meet reality is valuable, but when tracing the origins and roots of a political philosophy, its ideals are the purest expression of it.  The fact that "no plan survives contact with the enemy" does not negate the fact that there was a plan in the first place.

So, by my count, most of the points in this program are either outright fascist/nationalist, or collectivist. I think the issue is that you believe collectivist to be synonymous with socialist; this is a category error. It's as wrong as saying that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the same religion.

I don't believe they're synonymous, but you're right in observing that I was holding them equivalent for the purposes of evaluating the list.  To use your analogy, when comparing Christianity, Islam, and Judasim against each other, they are most certainly different, just as Fascism is different from Communism.  But when comparing Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to Hinduism or ancient Greek polytheism, it is entirely appropriate to group the Abrahamic religions together on the monotheistic side of the spectrum.

And note that I agree with you that most of the points are fascist/nationalist; I said in my previous post that "there is a lot of fascism there, certainly."

I think the issue with your position is that you believe nationalism is intrinsically right-wing.  It isn't.  The Soviet Union was nationalistic under Stalin, and nobody argues that the Soviet Union was right-wing.

Here is what Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1944:

Yet it is clear that both systems, the German and the Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist. And it is only the economic point of view that matters in debating whether or not a party or system is socialist. Socialism is and has always been considered a system of economic organization of society. It is the system under which the government has full control of production and distribution. As far as socialism existing merely within indi­vidual countries can be called genuine, both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.

[...]

The characteristic feature of socialism is not equality of income but the all‑round control of business activities by the government, the government's exclusive power to use all means of production.

This reflects a collectivist diminution of the individual, whether for the benefit of "the People" (as in Communism) or "the State" (as in Fascism).

So, if you know this, why do you keep saying that Fascism is left-wing, thereby associating modern liberals and progressives with it?

That's a telling statement.  Do you think that saying Naziism is right-wing associates modern conservatives with it?

The fascist manifesto you quote was also quickly left behind by Mussolini, and there never was any real attempt to put the socialist-seeming positions therein into practice.

What do you consider a "real attempt"?  Women's suffrage was enacted only three years after Mussolini took power.  The Labour Charter was passed within five years.

Trump is totally against free exchange of ideas (as shown on this site), and new people like myself. And that could be the reason why Trump repeatedly praised Putin - he wants to keep out young people and stall technological progress forever by turning America into a fascist, geronto-kleptocractic state. He is a neo-Luddite, and will create a very powerful social movement that's anti-technology, a development which could potentially prevent humans reaching milestones like landing an astronaut on Mars.

It sounds like your imagination got away from you there.

Goober, you quoted the manifesto despite already being told numerous times that the socialist claims by facists were most propaganda.

But more important than what someone says, it what they did. And you're going to have a hard time proving that the Nazi Party did more left wing things than right or centrist things.

The thing is, saying something numerous times doesn't make it any more true.

Re the Nazi Party, see the article by Mises that I linked above.

2.  No, but employment types shift over time regardless.  The sleight-of-hand versus true picture remark remains unproven; you've yet to present any kind of data other than a puff piece by Pat Buchanan.  Want to try?  Moreover, the CFR piece appears to be a better evaluation of the benefits and pitfalls of NAFTA, which nonetheless concludes a net benefit to the United States.

"Employment types shift over time regardless?"  That only happens when new employees join the workforce.  The existing employees are out of luck.

"You've yet to present any kind of data" is an outright lie.  Go back and look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and the debt-to-GDP ratios that I cited.

As for calling the Pat Buchanan article a "puff piece", I'm curious as to how you characterize it that way when it contains a considerable number of facts and figures.  Shall I therefore call the CFR piece a puff piece?

3.  We're really going to argue about the definition of argument from authority now, after I actually quoted the damn thing?  No.  No we're not.  Carry on however you like; your sources are not credible and I frankly no longer care about how you present a response to that unless you feel like coming up with better ones.

You didn't actually quote the definition.  You quoted a categorization ("a common type of argument which can be fallacious") and two examples ("such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert").

The actual definition is "where an assertion is deemed true [or false] because of the position or authority of the person asserting it".  You committed the fallacy previously - and again here - when you dismissed the articles and the authors I cited based on their "credibility" rather than the facts and figures they contain.  It's a very convenient way to control an argument: "Any evidence I introduce is credible.  Any evidence you introduce is not credible and therefore false."

The FBI's recommendation not to bring charges contradicts its own statement that there is evidence to support doing so.  The evidence supports gross negligence and perjury, at the very least.  Actually producing a conviction is for the trial to determine, but one cannot possibly say that there are no grounds to file charges.

No, it doesn't.  Evidence can minimally exist and yet not meet the elements for criminal prosecution; if you knew anything about the interpretation or enforcement of criminal law you would know this.  It happens all the time.  One of the primary considerations of any potential prosecution is whether the evidence meets all of the elements of the offence [it doesn't], whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt [it doesn't], whether the prosecution has any reasonable chance of success [it doesn't].  There are other factors as well. You are not a lawyer.  You are not a law enforcement officer.  You have absolutely no apparent experience in this area.  The people who do have determined that there are no reasonable grounds to support a prosecution, prosecution is NOT warranted, and would NOT be successful in the circumstances.  If you want to argue with them, I suggest you find some legal grounds to do so.  Right now, you are Random Dude On The Internet Who Thinks People Who Actually Know What They Are Talking About Are Wrong Because.  Presenting my interpretation is not a fallatial argument from my own authority, it is an argument based on the combination of my experience and education in this area, which happens to agree with the position taken by both the FBI and the US DoJ.  To recap, in the context of the HLP discussion on this matter, we have the opinion of Goober versus the combined education and experience of the FBI, the US DoJ, and the agreement of otherwise-inconsequential-to-the-matter MP-Ryan.

Okay, this actually sounds more reasonable.  Now I would say that the evidence meets all the elements of the offense based on a plain reading of the FBI's statement.  But, for the other two conditions, I don't know for a fact that it meets the "reasonable doubt" or "reasonable chance of success" thresholds.  I could say that it's extremely likely based on the known history and the character of the person involved, but that's not the same thing.

Here is an article on it by an actual attorney, albeit not a criminal lawyer.  (Start reading partway down the page at "According to most reports".  In the author's judgement, "the text of the statute and known facts present a clear-cut case for indicting Clinton", thought prosecutorial discretion may lead to charges not being filed.

Also, I'm curious: how often is prosecutorial discretion invoked to not file criminal charges in the situation where all three conditions are met?  I would think the prosecutor would always file charges in that case, unless it involved a mercy situation such as a kid who was truly repentant, there was no harm done, and a conviction would mess him up for life.

Trump is going to make America Great Again by enacting economic policies that put the United States into a recession. That's a novel argument.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: You're assuming the premise of your own argument.  If Trump's policies do not prompt recession, the syllogism fails.

I am still waiting to hear how the economic impact, potential lives lost, and disruption to the military command structure by Trump's assertions about handling ISIS will make American lives better, particularly as all but the slimmest fraction of American lives taken since the emergence of ISIS have been by homegrown terrorists, or people who had legally immigrated years beforehand.

Well, we shall see.  Maybe it won't.  In that case, I will freely concede the point.

That Trump said he'd open up libel laws because newspapers were printing stories he didn't like isn't concerning?  I'd find that very concerning.  I'd find it downright terrifying that a candidate for the leadership of my country's first reaction and reaction that he publicly stated to somebody saying something he didn't like was to suggest that he would tinker with the first and most important amendment to the Constitution of my country.

I don't find it very concerning at all, because there is an almost zero chance he'd be able to do anything about the First Amendment.  Any proposed change would first have to pass Congress and then have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the several states.  I doubt he'd spend all of his political capital on such a trivial issue.  He's smarter than that.

You want to trust the nuclear launch button to a man so insecure and infantile that his first response to literally any criticism is either a personal attack or a direct abuse of your Constitution (see also:  torture, Muslim ban, attack of judge due to heritage, etc), while he responds to any slight compliment, no matter who the source (e.g. Putin), with fawning admiration.

I think your assessment of Trump's sensitivity is overblown.  Watch the debates and see how he does.

[NGTM-1R]

Facts are rhetoric now? 

A statement that something you disagree with is "propaganda", especially without providing the slightest reason why anyone should believe this, is not a fact. It is a rhetorical device. Not even a particularly well-employed one.

History is ignorance? 

The only history you have offered is deeply ignorant, c.f. MP-Ryan, The_E, even Bob for chrissakes!, supra; well constructed, well reasoned postings to which your response has been "no I'm right" and occasional arguments from what is at best irrelevant authority.

Disagreeing with someone is dragging down the quality of discussion?

It's not that you disagree with someone.

It's that you are blatantly doing so in bad faith. Your participation in this thread has been entirely negative because you have employed bad-faith argumentation strategies in every post. Consider the following:

When MP-Ryan dismisses a source you link to, he does so by pointing out why it is not a trustworthy source; what particular axes it has to grind and its lack of qualifications to discuss the issue and how it diverges from the consensus view of other sources that actually are qualified to be discussing the issue.

When you dismiss a source, you merely state that it is "propaganda" and ignore it.

This is behavior that would be contemptible coming from a regular member and they would rightly be mocked for it. That it is coming from an admin is a ridiculous state of affairs; one would hope someone of your position would at least have the good grace to shut up rather than bring their office and the site into disrepute (since you have made many arguments about how admins are special and should be respected down the years, most recently in the avatars thread) by arguing with such transparently bad-faith tactics.

[The E]

Here is what Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1944:

Yet it is clear that both systems, the German and the Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist. And it is only the economic point of view that matters in debating whether or not a party or system is socialist. Socialism is and has always been considered a system of economic organization of society. It is the system under which the government has full control of production and distribution. As far as socialism existing merely within indi­vidual countries can be called genuine, both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.

[...]

The characteristic feature of socialism is not equality of income but the all‑round control of business activities by the government, the government's exclusive power to use all means of production.

This reflects a collectivist diminution of the individual, whether for the benefit of "the People" (as in Communism) or "the State" (as in Fascism).

But that difference is absolutely crucial when it comes to determining which brand of collectivism a nation operates under.

Again: Fascism by itself has economic goals, but no preset way to achieve them, leaving the mechanisms of achieving them open to interpretation. Hitler himself described national socialism as a synthesis of what he believed the best options from among the various positions on the political spectrum were; as a result, he initially chose positions from the communist party's program to fill out things in the NSDAP's party program.

Nazi Germany must be called collectivist. But calling it socialist is simply wrong, as far as modern political science goes.

That's a telling statement.  Do you think that saying Naziism is right-wing associates modern conservatives with it?

Yes. The Nazi regime was an expression of extreme social conservatism and extreme nationalism; both positions that are hallmarks of modern political conservatism. Looking at the US, the conservative movement has undergone a degree of radicalization resulting in the Tea Party and Trump movements. The Trump movement in particular has an eery resemblance to the early NSDAP; it is very big on generalizations, demonization of its opponents, demonization of outsiders, a collectivist sense of being part of a nation, vague promises of greatness to be achieved in the future, an utter disregard for facts and a mastery over the media environment.

So, just like soviet-style vanguardism is an extreme expression of modern liberal ideas, fascism (and national socialism) are extreme expressions of modern conservative ideas.

What do you consider a "real attempt"?  Women's suffrage was enacted only three years after Mussolini took power.  The Labour Charter was passed within five years.

And women's suffrage was rendered meaningless by the abolishment of democratic principles in 1925 and 26, and after 1926, Italy became one nation effectively under corporatist rule. Labour unions were dismantled, and labour representation became irrelevant.

By the time Mussolini started to actually do communist things, it was February 12th, 1944, after the Allies had already captured Rome and Italy became a german puppet.

The thing is, saying something numerous times doesn't make it any more true.

Re the Nazi Party, see the article by Mises that I linked above.

Just FYI, you're arguing against the majority position of historians on this subject.
Again: Most of the socialist policies in the NSDAP party program never made it into law, and if they did, they were a tool to disown non-germanic people.

That Trump said he'd open up libel laws because newspapers were printing stories he didn't like isn't concerning?  I'd find that very concerning.  I'd find it downright terrifying that a candidate for the leadership of my country's first reaction and reaction that he publicly stated to somebody saying something he didn't like was to suggest that he would tinker with the first and most important amendment to the Constitution of my country.

I don't find it very concerning at all, because there is an almost zero chance he'd be able to do anything about the First Amendment.  Any proposed change would first have to pass Congress and then have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the several states.  I doubt he'd spend all of his political capital on such a trivial issue.  He's smarter than that.

Are you really, absolutely certain of that?

Also, this is weird: Trump is campaigning on a platform based around being someone not beholden to the political elites. He has positioned himself as someone who is "not a politician", as someone who is strong enough to break up the lock those same elites have on US politics. He's also making statements that are not reconcilable with a traditional interpretation of the constitution, and yet, you believe these statements won't matter because the elites he is campaigning against and that he says he will beat won't let them pass into law?

Disagreeing with someone is dragging down the quality of discussion?

It's not that you disagree with someone.

It's that you are blatantly doing so in bad faith. Your participation in this thread has been entirely negative because you have employed bad-faith argumentation strategies in every post. Consider the following:

When MP-Ryan dismisses a source you link to, he does so by pointing out why it is not a trustworthy source; what particular axes it has to grind and its lack of qualifications to discuss the issue and how it diverges from the consensus view of other sources that actually are qualified to be discussing the issue.

When you dismiss a source, you merely state that it is "propaganda" and ignore it.

This is behavior that would be contemptible coming from a regular member and they would rightly be mocked for it. That it is coming from an admin is a ridiculous state of affairs; one would hope someone of your position would at least have the good grace to shut up rather than bring their office and the site into disrepute (since you have made many arguments about how admins are special and should be respected down the years, most recently in the avatars thread) by arguing with such transparently bad-faith tactics.

And yes, this.

[MP-Ryan]

"Employment types shift over time regardless?"  That only happens when new employees join the workforce.  The existing employees are out of luck.

"You've yet to present any kind of data" is an outright lie.  Go back and look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and the debt-to-GDP ratios that I cited.

As for calling the Pat Buchanan article a "puff piece", I'm curious as to how you characterize it that way when it contains a considerable number of facts and figures.  Shall I therefore call the CFR piece a puff piece?

Employment types absolutely shift over time.  The economy of the US today is not the same as the economy of the US circa 1950.  Trump essentially believes he can return the US to the economy of 1950, which simply is not possible.  For one, it's always going to be cheaper to manufacture many things in other countries.  For two, the US is now a service and tech-based economy.  For three, any enactment of tarrifs to force manufacturing to return to the US would render the cost of the raw materials - which you generally do not make yourselves - astronomically expensive and harm the economy overall; wages will not keep up with the cost of goods.  Trump either doesn't realize this, in which case he's stupid, or does realize this, in which case he's a liar.

You've presented two snipped statistics with no analysis.  I've pulled two analysis pieces that at least attempt an objective, multi-sided look at the issue.  The "analysis" piece you pulled is from a political operative/journalist who writes an op-ed with a one-sided thesis and makes no attempt to actually contemplate or review alternative positions.  That is why it is a puff piece.  Op-eds are opinion pieces designed to persuade an audience; they are not a reliable source of data because they [intentionally] do not do a multi-sided analysis.  Buchanan's piece begins with the assumption that his premise is correct.

when you dismissed the articles and the authors I cited based on their "credibility" rather than the facts and figures they contain.  It's a very convenient way to control an argument: "Any evidence I introduce is credible.  Any evidence you introduce is not credible and therefore false."

No, as above, I dismissed the two pieces you provided - by Buchanan and David Ramsay Steele - for the following reasons.  These are essential elements of any source selection:
- The authors begin from a premise.  They are opinion pieces; in both cases, where facts are presented they are done so only to support that opinion.  In other words, the writers don't begin with data and reach a conclusion; they begin with a conclusion and select/interpret their data for it.
- The authors do not perform multi-sided analysis.
- Despite lacking multi-sided analysis, their theses directly contradict established research in the areas in which they opine.
- The authors lack credentials in the field in which they are opining.
- The work is not peer-review (this is true of both the sources I selected, however, and is not an absolute requirement, it is simply problematic due to the first three factors they cited).

There is nothing wrong with writing an op-ed.  Our posts are essentially op-eds; we pick and choose sourcing to bolster our arguments.  The difference is, you cannot source one op-ed based on another.

For both the economics-related sources I've pulled, I've selected sources that present available data and attempt an objective, multi-sided analysis of it (the CFR piece is the better of the two in this regard).  So yes, I'm dismissing your sources, but I'm doing so not by means of argumentative fallacy, but in light of actual reasons why they are bad sources.  If I'm guilty of anything, it's failure to explain the above analysis when I dismissed them.

Instead of railing about fallacies that I'm not committing, your time would be better served by trying to find credible, [at least moderately] objective sourcing from reputable persons or organizations qualified in their fields to present that information.

Okay, this actually sounds more reasonable.  Now I would say that the evidence meets all the elements of the offense based on a plain reading of the FBI's statement.  But, for the other two conditions, I don't know for a fact that it meets the "reasonable doubt" or "reasonable chance of success" thresholds.  I could say that it's extremely likely based on the known history and the character of the person involved, but that's not the same thing.

Evidence must establish clearly-met elements.  "Intent"/"knowing" clearly aren't met based on what the FBI has said.  For that matter, the FBI has not disclosed what the evidence is, nor the volume of it.  They've simply said some evidence exists.  In law enforcement parlance, that means exactly what it says:  some evidence exists.  It doesn't mean it is sufficient to meet the legal element, nor that it is compelling to show the element can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is an article on it by an actual attorney, albeit not a criminal lawyer.  (Start reading partway down the page at "According to most reports".  In the author's judgement, "the text of the statute and known facts present a clear-cut case for indicting Clinton", thought prosecutorial discretion may lead to charges not being filed.

The problem with that analysis is that it was written before the FBI statement on findings.  None of he, you, or I have seen the evidence available to the FBI, the analysis of each piece of that evidence that would be done by both the FBI and DoJ, or the whole case.  What all three of us are doing is conjecture.  His conjecture was based on what he knew at the time, which was never the whole picture.  My conjecture is based on what all of us know now, which still isn't the whole picture.  The only people with the whole picture are the FBI and DoJ.  They are the ones who gathered all the evidence, analyzed it, compiled it into a prosecution brief/report, and then decided if charges were appropriate - and they weren't.  Moreover, indictment is a very different thing from conviction.  It would be irresponsible for prosecutors to waste money, time, and resources pursuing a case where there was no prospect of a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty finding.

Also, I'm curious: how often is prosecutorial discretion invoked to not file criminal charges in the situation where all three conditions are met?  I would think the prosecutor would always file charges in that case, unless it involved a mercy situation such as a kid who was truly repentant, there was no harm done, and a conviction would mess him up for life.

This is where Canada and the US may differ.  In Canada, in addition to the evaluation of the evidence, here's how Crown Prosecutors review the decision to prosecute:  http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch03.html  In the US, this appears to be the equivalent guidance for federal prosecutions:  https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution

Anecdotally, people like [former federal prosecutor] Ken White (popehat.com) have commented that federal prosecutors don't generally take cases lightly as they have limited resources and proceed with a relative few prosecutions compared to their state counterparts; as such, only cases in which the evidence is clear, the prospect of conviction is good, and the public interest is high end up prosecuted.

In this case, based on what is known to the public there isn't a case to proceed with charges.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: You're assuming the premise of your own argument.  If Trump's policies do not prompt recession, the syllogism fails.

And you're then doing the opposite.  In spite of the not-inconsiderable analysis by reputable economists, you're assuming that Trump's economic promises are going to do exactly what Trump says.

I don't find it very concerning at all, because there is an almost zero chance he'd be able to do anything about the First Amendment.

This is an odd statement.  You're willing to elect a leader who has flatly questioned the value of the First Amendment protections on the basis that its unlikely he can actually do anything to it?  By this argument, people who oppose firearms regulation obviously shouldn't care if a Presidential candidate supports it either.  Which is somewhat amusing, considering a regular argument against Clinton is "she's gunna take mah guns!"

I think your assessment of Trump's sensitivity is overblown.  Watch the debates and see how he does.

I fully intend to, I think it's going to be hilarious, particularly if the media grades his actual performance instead of his performance-vs-expectations-of-the-impending-disaster.

[MP-Ryan]

Today in Trump:
- CNN ratings are so low. This is because they have boring anti-Trump panelists who are losers in life.
- New York Times is failing.
- Prize-winning journalist Maureen Dowd is neurotic/crazy because she wrote something about Trump that he doesn't like.
- Trump's lawyers want to sue NYT for "irresponsible intent" and Trump said no for now, except this convo either never happened or went the other way because "irresponsible intent" has no legal meaning.

Yup, this asshat is totally qualified to be President.

[Goober5000]

Facts are rhetoric now?

A statement that something you disagree with is "propaganda", especially without providing the slightest reason why anyone should believe this, is not a fact. It is a rhetorical device. Not even a particularly well-employed one.

Now you're using rhetoric of your own, but rhetoric without a foundation of truth is deceit.  Go back and search the thread.  Nowhere in this thread have I claimed that anything I disagree with is propaganda; the one who claimed that is Aesaar in this post.  The only time I even mentioned the term was in this post when I responded to Mongoose's comment about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

History is ignorance?

The only history you have offered is deeply ignorant, c.f. MP-Ryan, The_E, even Bob for chrissakes!, supra; well constructed, well reasoned postings to which your response has been "no I'm right" and occasional arguments from what is at best irrelevant authority.

I cited numerous articles, numerous writers, and numerous facts and figures in support of my arguments.  If your summary of the thousands of words I've written in this thread is a simple "I'm right" then I appreciate your endorsement of my conclusions.

Disagreeing with someone is dragging down the quality of discussion?

It's not that you disagree with someone.

It's that you are blatantly doing so in bad faith. Your participation in this thread has been entirely negative because you have employed bad-faith argumentation strategies in every post. Consider the following:

When MP-Ryan dismisses a source you link to, he does so by pointing out why it is not a trustworthy source; what particular axes it has to grind and its lack of qualifications to discuss the issue and how it diverges from the consensus view of other sources that actually are qualified to be discussing the issue.

When you dismiss a source, you merely state that it is "propaganda" and ignore it.'

Feel free to try to point out where I dismissed a source as propaganda.  You can't do it because it didn't happen.

But that difference is absolutely crucial when it comes to determining which brand of collectivism a nation operates under.

Again: Fascism by itself has economic goals, but no preset way to achieve them, leaving the mechanisms of achieving them open to interpretation. Hitler himself described national socialism as a synthesis of what he believed the best options from among the various positions on the political spectrum were; as a result, he initially chose positions from the communist party's program to fill out things in the NSDAP's party program.

Nazi Germany must be called collectivist. But calling it socialist is simply wrong, as far as modern political science goes.

I freely acknowledged that Nazi Germany was fascist in response to your previous argument.  But it was also socialist -- the two are not mutually exclusive.  I don't see how calling it socialist is "simply wrong" unless you have another "characteristic feature of socialism" in mind.

I mean, this argument is very straightforward:

A) "The characteristic feature of socialism is not equality of income but the all-round control of business activities by the government, the government's exclusive power to use all means of production."
B) Nazi Germany demonstrated this feature.
C) Therefore, Nazi Germany can be correctly characterized as socialist.

Yes. The Nazi regime was an expression of extreme social conservatism and extreme nationalism; both positions that are hallmarks of modern political conservatism. Looking at the US, the conservative movement has undergone a degree of radicalization resulting in the Tea Party and Trump movements. The Trump movement in particular has an eery resemblance to the early NSDAP; it is very big on generalizations, demonization of its opponents, demonization of outsiders, a collectivist sense of being part of a nation, vague promises of greatness to be achieved in the future, an utter disregard for facts and a mastery over the media environment.

So, just like soviet-style vanguardism is an extreme expression of modern liberal ideas, fascism (and national socialism) are extreme expressions of modern conservative ideas.

But the economic axis is different from the social axis.  It's possible to be economically socialist while socially conservative.  And it's possible to be economically laissez-faire while socially liberal.

The aspects of the Trump movement you cited are interesting comparisons, but they are tactics, not ideals or positions.  The positions are outlined on Trump's website.

What do you consider a "real attempt"?  Women's suffrage was enacted only three years after Mussolini took power.  The Labour Charter was passed within five years.

And women's suffrage was rendered meaningless by the abolishment of democratic principles in 1925 and 26, and after 1926, Italy became one nation effectively under corporatist rule. Labour unions were dismantled, and labour representation became irrelevant.

By the time Mussolini started to actually do communist things, it was February 12th, 1944, after the Allies had already captured Rome and Italy became a german puppet.

Very well.  So then, what is your conclusion - that because only a few of those Fascist Manifesto planks were implemented, that Mussolini didn't really intend to follow it?  Or that the Fascists didn't really believe what they wrote?

Just FYI, you're arguing against the majority position of historians on this subject.
Again: Most of the socialist policies in the NSDAP party program never made it into law, and if they did, they were a tool to disown non-germanic people.

I'm not surprised the majority of historians take the opposite view, as it has been the prevailing consensus for around 70 years.  But just because a majority holds a certain view doesn't necessarily make it correct.  Most historians once believed that the city of Troy was mythological.

I don't find it very concerning at all, because there is an almost zero chance he'd be able to do anything about the First Amendment.  Any proposed change would first have to pass Congress and then have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the several states.  I doubt he'd spend all of his political capital on such a trivial issue.  He's smarter than that.

Are you really, absolutely certain of that?

I'm not "absolutely certain", but I think it is highly unlikely.  His first political priority will almost surely be building the wall.  Other top priorities will be the economy, the national infrastructure, and ISIS.  He might make noises about libel laws but I don't think he'll propose any substantial changes.

Also, this is weird: Trump is campaigning on a platform based around being someone not beholden to the political elites. He has positioned himself as someone who is "not a politician", as someone who is strong enough to break up the lock those same elites have on US politics. He's also making statements that are not reconcilable with a traditional interpretation of the constitution, and yet, you believe these statements won't matter because the elites he is campaigning against and that he says he will beat won't let them pass into law?

No, because it would require a tremendous amount of political capital for a trivial amount of gain.  Trump is a dealmaker.  He wouldn't take that deal.

And yes, this.

In addition to the fact that I haven't dismissed any sources as propaganda, I've been arguing in good faith (as have you and MP-Ryan).  We're having a rational exchange of ideas.  This is distinct from someone like Phantom Hoover who comes in just to take potshots, or someone like NGTM-1R who comes in just to heap contempt and condescension.

"Employment types shift over time regardless?"  That only happens when new employees join the workforce.  The existing employees are out of luck.

Employment types absolutely shift over time.  The economy of the US today is not the same as the economy of the US circa 1950.

Yes, and the reason that happened is because over time, certain types of jobs became obsolete and certain types of jobs were invented.  But that happens over generations, and usually because old workers retire and new workers take their place.  That's a distinctly different phenomenon than a factory worker starting a new career path because his factory moved out of the US.

Trump essentially believes he can return the US to the economy of 1950, which simply is not possible.  For one, it's always going to be cheaper to manufacture many things in other countries.  For two, the US is now a service and tech-based economy.  For three, any enactment of tarrifs to force manufacturing to return to the US would render the cost of the raw materials - which you generally do not make yourselves - astronomically expensive and harm the economy overall; wages will not keep up with the cost of goods.  Trump either doesn't realize this, in which case he's stupid, or does realize this, in which case he's a liar.

I lack the time to look up a refutation right now so I'll just let this stand, with a few brief comments -- 1) with trade tariffs, this would not be the case; 2) many things are still manufactured in the US, and in any case diversifying the economy is a good thing; 3) the downside of higher costs will be offset by the upside of higher employment, and a new equilibrium will be reached.  Also, there are intangible benefits to bringing manufacturing back into the US that are not included in an economic analysis.

You've presented two snipped statistics with no analysis.  I've pulled two analysis pieces that at least attempt an objective, multi-sided look at the issue.  The "analysis" piece you pulled is from a political operative/journalist who writes an op-ed with a one-sided thesis and makes no attempt to actually contemplate or review alternative positions.  That is why it is a puff piece.  Op-eds are opinion pieces designed to persuade an audience; they are not a reliable source of data because they [intentionally] do not do a multi-sided analysis.  Buchanan's piece begins with the assumption that his premise is correct.

Any piece written by a human author is going to reflect the biases of that author.  This is true of both one-sided and multi-sided analyses.  Op-eds are more obvious about it, but even the CFR article was working toward a particular conclusion.  You can't say that the CFR article is "more correct" because it presents both sides of the issue.

No, as above, I dismissed the two pieces you provided - by Buchanan and David Ramsay Steele - for the following reasons.  These are essential elements of any source selection:
- The authors begin from a premise.  They are opinion pieces; in both cases, where facts are presented they are done so only to support that opinion.  In other words, the writers don't begin with data and reach a conclusion; they begin with a conclusion and select/interpret their data for it.
- The authors do not perform multi-sided analysis.
- Despite lacking multi-sided analysis, their theses directly contradict established research in the areas in which they opine.
- The authors lack credentials in the field in which they are opining.
- The work is not peer-review (this is true of both the sources I selected, however, and is not an absolute requirement, it is simply problematic due to the first three factors they cited).

There is nothing wrong with writing an op-ed.  Our posts are essentially op-eds; we pick and choose sourcing to bolster our arguments.  The difference is, you cannot source one op-ed based on another.

For both the economics-related sources I've pulled, I've selected sources that present available data and attempt an objective, multi-sided analysis of it (the CFR piece is the better of the two in this regard).  So yes, I'm dismissing your sources, but I'm doing so not by means of argumentative fallacy, but in light of actual reasons why they are bad sources.  If I'm guilty of anything, it's failure to explain the above analysis when I dismissed them.

Instead of railing about fallacies that I'm not committing, your time would be better served by trying to find credible, [at least moderately] objective sourcing from reputable persons or organizations qualified in their fields to present that information.

The elements you listed are useful ways to evaluate the credibility, or lack thereof, of a source.  And the credibility of a source provides an indicator of how likely it is to be true or false.  But it is not definitive.  An article stands or falls based on the facts and figures it contains, not the person who wrote it.

Remember when said "by your standards, I should disregard the Newsweek article", and how absurd you thought that was?  That was me showing you the logical fallacy from the other direction.  Dismissing sources on their basis of their credibility, and not on the basis of their content, is the problem.

A related problem is that adhering to the prevailing consensus is often a requirement for establishing credibility in a particular field.  This leads to a circular argument: articles and research that challenge the prevailing consensus should be dismissed because they are not credible; and they are deemed not credible because they challenge the prevailing consensus.

The reason I'm focusing on the logical fallacy rather than finding additional sources is that any sources which support my position are by definition going to contradict established research, and that's one of your criteria for judging a source credible or not.  There isn't really any point in me finding another source if it's just going to be returned unread.

Did you read the David Ramsay Steele article, by the way?  Far from being an op-ed, that article attempts to present an objective assessment of Fascism and its origins.  I'd like to see you (or The E) attempt to address its points rather than dismissing the article outright.

This is where Canada and the US may differ.  In Canada, in addition to the evaluation of the evidence, here's how Crown Prosecutors review the decision to prosecute:  http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch03.html  In the US, this appears to be the equivalent guidance for federal prosecutions:  https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution

Anecdotally, people like [former federal prosecutor] Ken White (popehat.com) have commented that federal prosecutors don't generally take cases lightly as they have limited resources and proceed with a relative few prosecutions compared to their state counterparts; as such, only cases in which the evidence is clear, the prospect of conviction is good, and the public interest is high end up prosecuted.

Okay, this makes sense.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: You're assuming the premise of your own argument.  If Trump's policies do not prompt recession, the syllogism fails.

And you're then doing the opposite.  In spite of the not-inconsiderable analysis by reputable economists, you're assuming that Trump's economic promises are going to do exactly what Trump says.

No, although I probably didn't make that clear.  I'm not certain that his economic policies will be as successful as he claims.  But I have read strong arguments against many of the commonly cited objections to his policies, so I will reserve judgement until they are implemented and we see what the effects are.  One such objection - the emphasis on free trade - has been pretty persuasively debunked.  I used to be in favor of free trade; I no longer am.

This is an odd statement.  You're willing to elect a leader who has flatly questioned the value of the First Amendment protections on the basis that its unlikely he can actually do anything to it?  By this argument, people who oppose firearms regulation obviously shouldn't care if a Presidential candidate supports it either.  Which is somewhat amusing, considering a regular argument against Clinton is "she's gunna take mah guns!"

The difference here is that there are a number of obstacles one has to surmount before exercising one's Second Amendment rights: passing a background check, possibly obtaining a license depending on the jurisdiction, and then observing the numerous rules and regulations such as not carrying into a post office or into a school zone, etc.  It would be easy to further curtail one's Second Amendment rights by passing further rules and regulations, while leaving the amendment itself untouched.  There are far fewer restrictions on the First Amendment.

[MP-Ryan]

Yes, and the reason that happened is because over time, certain types of jobs became obsolete and certain types of jobs were invented.  But that happens over generations, and usually because old workers retire and new workers take their place.  That's a distinctly different phenomenon than a factory worker starting a new career path because his factory moved out of the US.

Not at all.  Manufacturing has been shifting out of the US for decades; it has become considerably cheaper (for many reasons) to manufacture a wide variety of goods outside the United States.  As I said, the US economy has shifted away from a manufacturing/industrial economy to one heavily based in services and technology.  Trump wants to dial back the clock, which is literally impossible.

I lack the time to look up a refutation right now so I'll just let this stand, with a few brief comments -- 1) with trade tariffs, this would not be the case; 2) many things are still manufactured in the US, and in any case diversifying the economy is a good thing; 3) the downside of higher costs will be offset by the upside of higher employment, and a new equilibrium will be reached.  Also, there are intangible benefits to bringing manufacturing back into the US that are not included in an economic analysis.

Imposing trade tariffs when you do have to import most of the raw materials would be economic suicide.  You make literally everything more expensive, and it would take years for employment - and wages - to catch up.  You'd be literally plunging huge proportions of the middle and lower class down to or below the poverty line, because retaliatory tariffs - on those services and technologies - would take your trade deficits and turn them into trade "cement shoes."  Even if Trump were elected to two terms (perish the thought), the recovery wouldn't happen in his tenure.

A related problem is that adhering to the prevailing consensus is often a requirement for establishing credibility in a particular field.  This leads to a circular argument: articles and research that challenge the prevailing consensus should be dismissed because they are not credible; and they are deemed not credible because they challenge the prevailing consensus.

The reason I'm focusing on the logical fallacy rather than finding additional sources is that any sources which support my position are by definition going to contradict established research, and that's one of your criteria for judging a source credible or not.  There isn't really any point in me finding another source if it's just going to be returned unread.

Did you read the David Ramsay Steele article, by the way?  Far from being an op-ed, that article attempts to present an objective assessment of Fascism and its origins.  I'd like to see you (or The E) attempt to address its points rather than dismissing the article outright.

You're not getting it.  There's nothing wrong with positions that go against the grain, when they are backed up with objective research, placed in the proper context, and approached from multiple angles that examine both the strengths of the authors' positions and the factors that weaken them.  That's good science (or history, in this case).  That's not what your citations do.  I actually did read the Steele piece when your first posted it; by about a page in it was abundantly clear that he was cherry-picking facts out of their context to bolster a per-determined political bias, not attempting to present an objective layout of the facts and make an argument from them.

Your entire Fascism = left wing argument is premised fundamentally on the notion that Mussolini/Hitler/Franco called themselves socialists and enacted policies taken from the capital-S Socialist parties, which makes the political movements they led left wing.  I - and everyone else - have already repeated multiple times why this isn't the case, despite Steele's biased review:
1.  Fascist parties directly adopted the economic policies of the Socialist parties because they were overwhelmingly popular.
2.  The Socialist parties, and their policies, were not what would contemporarily be considered left wing.  These were popular economic policies that occupied centrist majority positions even at that time (hence why they were enacted in virtually every democratic country).  Communism and anarchism were left-wing positions at the time.
3.  The Nazi Party in particular adopted the term "National Socialism" as rhetorical sleight-of-hand, again due to the popularity of Socialist parties in 1920s/30s Europe.
4.  Fascist parties were socially regressive, clawing back liberties in virtually all aspects of society that were previously unquestioned and took, in some cases, nearly 60 years to recover.  Germany in particular had a lax attitude toward homosexuality pre-mid-1920s; the Nazi Party changed all of that.

The Nazi Party declaring itself socialist in the 1930s is pretty much the same as China calling itself Communist today:  neither bore/bears any resemblance to the actual thing it is naming itself after, but its politically convenient.

No, although I probably didn't make that clear.  I'm not certain that his economic policies will be as successful as he claims.  But I have read strong arguments against many of the commonly cited objections to his policies, so I will reserve judgement until they are implemented and we see what the effects are.  One such objection - the emphasis on free trade - has been pretty persuasively debunked.  I used to be in favor of free trade; I no longer am.

So you'll trust the businessman who's gone into bankruptcy, doesn't pay his bills, regularly bald-faced lies in his speeches, and who is uniformly condemned by every current living former US President to experiment because something something.

The difference here is that there are a number of obstacles one has to surmount before exercising one's Second Amendment rights: passing a background check, possibly obtaining a license depending on the jurisdiction, and then observing the numerous rules and regulations such as not carrying into a post office or into a school zone, etc.  It would be easy to further curtail one's Second Amendment rights by passing further rules and regulations, while leaving the amendment itself untouched.  There are far fewer restrictions on the First Amendment.

There is a list of exceptions to the First Amendment carved out by the US Supreme Court.  Trump would have a supreme court appointment.  Peter Thiel, who just used untold millions to sue Gawker into oblivion has recently been saying Trump is willing to put him into the USSC.  Now, whether that happens or not, I would think anyone who values constitutionally protected rights would have extreme concerns about a potential President who has publicly mused on several occasions now (including yesterday) about lawsuits to shut down free speech and tinkering with laws that affect free speech.  The First Amendment protects all the rest, and now you have a Presidential candidate who has repeatedly and publicly said he either wants to abuse it or potentially change it, and actually has a mechanism to potentially make that happen.

You know what... ignore the responses above.  Seriously, you're entrenched in your positions in spite of the facts, and I don't see any real need to belabour the point unless everyone is really that bored.

It comes down to this.  Teflon where certain facts are concerned you may be, but you don't strike me as a stupid person, nor one ordinarily willing to be fed a line and swallow it whole, but you appear to have some massive blinders on where Trump is concerned.  I will freely and readily grant that Clinton is not an ideal alternative; as a candidate she definitely has problems with transparency and has made some questionable choices.  However, that is a far cry from the constant, repeated bloviating and lying from Trump who is flatly unqualified and unfit to serve as the President of the United States.  For the love of all that's holy, no one can even be certain of his personal wealth claims or connections because the man won't do what every candidate has done since Nixon and release his tax returns.  And how on Earth do you think he's going to build a wall on the southern border short of funnelling billions of federal dollars into it and leaving taxpayers on the hook?  I am generally curious.  In fact, this paragraph is what I want answered more than any of the others.  I don't care if you're wrong on the minutae, I really want SOMEONE to explain to me how Trump appears to be a fit person for the Presidency to anyone with more than one firing neuron in their skull.

[Phantom Hoover]

you don't strike me as a stupid person, nor one ordinarily willing to be fed a line and swallow it whole

he literally thinks god made the world 6000 years ago

[karajorma]

For the love of all that's holy, no one can even be certain of his personal wealth claims or connections because the man won't do what every candidate has done since Nixon and release his tax returns.

There's a reason for that actually. Trump not only might be exaggerating his claims of personal wealth but once adjusted for inflation, might be worth less than his father was. And any claims that he's a great businessman go out the window if he can be proven to have actually lost money.

[Mongoose]

I've seen multiple financial types state that they're just about certain Trump would be worth far more than he is today if he had simply prudently invested his inheritance.

[qwadtep]

This whole argument about the alignment of the Nazi Party is silly. It was a Third Position movement, perpendicular to the traditional Conservative/Liberal spectrum and opposite the modern Third Way.

For the love of all that's holy, no one can even be certain of his personal wealth claims or connections because the man won't do what every candidate has done since Nixon and release his tax returns.

There's a reason for that actually. Trump not only might be exaggerating his claims of personal wealth but once adjusted for inflation, might be worth less than his father was. And any claims that he's a great businessman go out the window if he can be proven to have actually lost money.

Or he's just waiting until late in the race to release so that his opposition keeps wasting resources attacking him over it and not other things. If nothing else, Trump is great at playing the media.

I've seen multiple financial types state that they're just about certain Trump would be worth far more than he is today if he had simply prudently invested his inheritance.

Hindsight is 20/20. Most people would be worth far more if they had just done x.

[Scotty]

The thing is that Trump is supposed to be good at ~money~ but is demonstrably ****ing terrible with it.

[MP-Ryan]

For the love of all that's holy, no one can even be certain of his personal wealth claims or connections because the man won't do what every candidate has done since Nixon and release his tax returns.

There's a reason for that actually. Trump not only might be exaggerating his claims of personal wealth but once adjusted for inflation, might be worth less than his father was. And any claims that he's a great businessman go out the window if he can be proven to have actually lost money.

I'm aware. It's pretty telling that the only thing he vetoed at his Comedy Central roast was not jokes about inappropriate relations between him and his daughter, but rather anything saying he's not worth as much as he claims.  He also ****ing loses it whenever opponents suggest he's not worth a lot or isn't that successful. It is pretty striking how insecure the man is about his supposed fortune.

Add that to his son's statement that they are heavily financially committed in Russia and you really start to wonder.

And while I'm driving the Dump Trump Truck here, have any of you read transcripts of his speeches or interviews? The man actually says nothing. He makes a facile claim, then repeats himself over and over emphatically, cutting off each sentence so he'll talk lengthily about nothing but emphatsis-adding phrasing. It obviously works for his base, but any shred of critical eye applied to his speeches makes you wonder how anyone has any respect for that over-inflated orange.

[Goober5000]

You're not getting it.  There's nothing wrong with positions that go against the grain, when they are backed up with objective research, placed in the proper context, and approached from multiple angles that examine both the strengths of the authors' positions and the factors that weaken them.  That's good science (or history, in this case).  That's not what your citations do.  I actually did read the Steele piece when your first posted it; by about a page in it was abundantly clear that he was cherry-picking facts out of their context to bolster a per-determined political bias, not attempting to present an objective layout of the facts and make an argument from them.

And yet, David Ramsay Steele was a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, so he knows whereof he speaks.  The correct way to dispute an article is to point out exactly which facts or contexts you disagree with, not to call the author "biased" and deem that a sufficient dismissal.

The reaction you describe is consistent with the cognitive bias of rejecting new information that challenges conclusions you've previously drawn.  I seriously doubt that you read much more than the "about a page" you described, because Steele does explicate the prevailing view of Fascism before going on to compare it with its actual historical development.

Your entire Fascism = left wing argument is premised fundamentally on the notion that Mussolini/Hitler/Franco called themselves socialists and enacted policies taken from the capital-S Socialist parties, which makes the political movements they led left wing.  I - and everyone else - have already repeated multiple times why this isn't the case, despite Steele's biased review:
1.  Fascist parties directly adopted the economic policies of the Socialist parties because they were overwhelmingly popular.
2.  The Socialist parties, and their policies, were not what would contemporarily be considered left wing.  These were popular economic policies that occupied centrist majority positions even at that time (hence why they were enacted in virtually every democratic country).  Communism and anarchism were left-wing positions at the time.
3.  The Nazi Party in particular adopted the term "National Socialism" as rhetorical sleight-of-hand, again due to the popularity of Socialist parties in 1920s/30s Europe.
4.  Fascist parties were socially regressive, clawing back liberties in virtually all aspects of society that were previously unquestioned and took, in some cases, nearly 60 years to recover.  Germany in particular had a lax attitude toward homosexuality pre-mid-1920s; the Nazi Party changed all of that.

The Nazi Party declaring itself socialist in the 1930s is pretty much the same as China calling itself Communist today:  neither bore/bears any resemblance to the actual thing it is naming itself after, but its politically convenient.

Actually, anarchy is extreme right-wing, because it is individualism taken to its greatest possible extent.  And sure, Communism is to the left of Socialism, but it's about the only thing that is.  And, further, the social political axis is different from the economic political axis.

Ah, well.  You've conceded that the Fascists adopted the economic policies of the Socialists, and The E has conceded that the Fascists were collectivists, so that's sufficient for me, as I too weary of belaboring the point.  I leave the categorization of Socialism on the left-right spectrum as an exercise for the reader.

So you'll trust the businessman who's gone into bankruptcy, doesn't pay his bills, regularly bald-faced lies in his speeches, and who is uniformly condemned by every current living former US President to experiment because something something.

Over the career politician who was extremely careless in handling classified information, exhibits no regrets or moral struggles with defending a pedophile on a technicality, accepts money from foreign governments, accepts money in pay-to-play arrangements, and has been associated with dozens of people who died under mysterious circumstances?  Yes.

You know what... ignore the responses above.  Seriously, you're entrenched in your positions in spite of the facts, and I don't see any real need to belabour the point unless everyone is really that bored.

It comes down to this.  Teflon where certain facts are concerned you may be, but you don't strike me as a stupid person, nor one ordinarily willing to be fed a line and swallow it whole, but you appear to have some massive blinders on where Trump is concerned.

That may be.  I appreciate any and all feedback offered in good faith, and you've certainly argued in good faith, susceptibility to certain fallacies notwithstanding.

I will freely and readily grant that Clinton is not an ideal alternative; as a candidate she definitely has problems with transparency and has made some questionable choices.  However, that is a far cry from the constant, repeated bloviating and lying from Trump who is flatly unqualified and unfit to serve as the President of the United States.  For the love of all that's holy, no one can even be certain of his personal wealth claims or connections because the man won't do what every candidate has done since Nixon and release his tax returns.  And how on Earth do you think he's going to build a wall on the southern border short of funnelling billions of federal dollars into it and leaving taxpayers on the hook?  I am generally curious.  In fact, this paragraph is what I want answered more than any of the others.  I don't care if you're wrong on the minutae, I really want SOMEONE to explain to me how Trump appears to be a fit person for the Presidency to anyone with more than one firing neuron in their skull.

In a nutshell, the reasons I cited a few paragraphs above.

The fact is that either Trump or Hillary is going to be elected President this year.  Trump is not my ideal candidate, but the country is in pretty bad shape.  Trump represents the guy who wants to fix things and Hillary represents the status quo.  In addition, Trump's flaws primarily take the form of acting like a bully, saying something mean, or being cavalier with facts (e.g. overinflating his reputation).  Hillary's flaws take the form of lies and alleged criminal behavior.  Notably, she seems to always get off scot-free from scandals that would ruin any other politician.  One of the DNC representatives said in a media interview, "There's lots of smoke, but no fire."  Well, perhaps we haven't actually found the fire yet, but it sure seems like one is there.  The Clintons have a history of shady behavior going all the way back to their law firm; it's like a real-life House of Cards.

he literally thinks god made the world 6000 years ago

You're a) completely off-topic, b) comparing two positions that could not possibly affect one another, and c) not even correct.

The thing is that Trump is supposed to be good at ~money~ but is demonstrably ****ing terrible with it.

He pulled out of Atlantic City right before it took a downturn.  Whether that was due to good timing or simply luck, it was the right call.

Add that to his son's statement that they are heavily financially committed in Russia and you really start to wonder.

Do you have a source for this?

The man actually says nothing. He makes a facile claim, then repeats himself over and over emphatically, cutting off each sentence so he'll talk lengthily about nothing but emphatsis-adding phrasing. It obviously works for his base, but any shred of critical eye applied to his speeches makes you wonder how anyone has any respect for that over-inflated orange.

Political rallies are about gathering support, not for going over the minutae of proposals.  Nobody wants to be bored, they want to be excited.  As I said earlier, detailed policy positions are on his website for anyone who wants to read them.

[Mongoose]

Trump is not my ideal candidate, but the country is in pretty bad shape.

I've seen this sentiment come up so much, and obviously Trump has it emblazoned on his ridiculous dollar-store trucker hat, but in what objective sense is it actually true?  By just about any relevant measure the United States has experienced a swifter economic recovery since the Great Recession than pretty much any other developed economy.  It's not exactly booming, but every metric from the unemployment rate to the housing market to consumer confidence has shown pretty sustained improvement over the past several years.  Yes, there are parts of the country where the economic recovery never truly took off, primarily rural areas, but by and large we're on an upswing.  To tear a page from Trump's playbook, deportation of illegal immigrants has actually increased over the past several years (individual mileage may vary on how much of an "improvement" it is.)  Entire groups of people have been granted rights they've been denied since the start of our country, gas prices have stayed fairly low, yeah our roads and bridges still suck but they've sucked for decades no matter who was in charge...just where are you seeing any of Trump's dire warnings actually holding sway?

The thing is, I really can't read "make America great again" any other way than as a massive dog-whistle for "make America like it was several decades ago, when it was great for people like me but really ****ty for a lot of other people, oh and the economic reality back then doesn't even remotely mesh with the current global market."  It's well past time we stopped glorifying the 50's and started to live in the 21st century.

Political rallies are about gathering support, not for going over the minutae of proposals.  Nobody wants to be bored, they want to be excited.  As I said earlier, detailed policy positions are on his website for anyone who wants to read them.

This seems a very dangerous line of thinking.  So a candidate's public presence should be all fluff and no substance?  Are our collective attention spans really that pathetically low today?  And you're really putting that much stock into some website fluff most certainly created by some campaign adviser (if not an intern), one laying out positions that Trump himself has shown absolutely no ability to stay consistent on even in the medium-term?

[MP-Ryan]

The quick and dirty response on Trump's Russian ties and the statements of his son: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/27/trumps-claim-that-i-have-nothing-to-do-with-russia/

On Trump policies, here's his "economic policy."
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision

Except that's not a policy. That's rhetoric. Fluff. Lower taxes for everyone? By how much? How's that being paid for? Considering the proportion of people who pay federal tax, who will that benefit?  Renovate NAFTA? How? When? How will it be made better?  Not to mention some of it makes no grammatical sense.  There are several random statements - "Economic output by $700 billion annually over next 30 years" under Energy Reform, for example - that simply have no context and are apparently random promises with no supporting information.

Trump's policies aren't policies; they're wishful thinking that he promises to bring about because he's the best, a winner, a best winner, a - you know, he's got all the best people and policies, lots of people say that and he wins, all the time, they say that too and he's definitely going to, well, he'll win for America and make America winners because he's the best winner.

See, I could totally write Trump speeches. THE BEST. WINNER! LOTS OF PEOPLE!

I'll respond to a bunch more tomorrow.

[qwadtep]

And Hillary has no ties to Russia at all, right?

Trump is not my ideal candidate, but the country is in pretty bad shape.

I've seen this sentiment come up so much, and obviously Trump has it emblazoned on his ridiculous dollar-store trucker hat, but in what objective sense is it actually true?  By just about any relevant measure the United States has experienced a swifter economic recovery since the Great Recession than pretty much any other developed economy.  It's not exactly booming, but every metric from the unemployment rate to the housing market to consumer confidence has shown pretty sustained improvement over the past several years.  Yes, there are parts of the country where the economic recovery never truly took off, primarily rural areas, but by and large we're on an upswing.  To tear a page from Trump's playbook, deportation of illegal immigrants has actually increased over the past several years (individual mileage may vary on how much of an "improvement" it is.)  Entire groups of people have been granted rights they've been denied since the start of our country, gas prices have stayed fairly low, yeah our roads and bridges still suck but they've sucked for decades no matter who was in charge...just where are you seeing any of Trump's dire warnings actually holding sway?

The thing is, I really can't read "make America great again" any other way than as a massive dog-whistle for "make America like it was several decades ago, when it was great for people like me but really ****ty for a lot of other people, oh and the economic reality back then doesn't even remotely mesh with the current global market."  It's well past time we stopped glorifying the 50's and started to live in the 21st century.

Political rallies are about gathering support, not for going over the minutae of proposals.  Nobody wants to be bored, they want to be excited.  As I said earlier, detailed policy positions are on his website for anyone who wants to read them.

This seems a very dangerous line of thinking.  So a candidate's public presence should be all fluff and no substance?  Are our collective attention spans really that pathetically low today?  And you're really putting that much stock into some website fluff most certainly created by some campaign adviser (if not an intern), one laying out positions that Trump himself has shown absolutely no ability to stay consistent on even in the medium-term?

Disappearance of the middle class, loss of manufacturing and skilled labor, inability to protect state and industrial secrets, corruption of both the political and legal systems, catastrophic failure of foreign policy, endangerment of free speech. There are plenty of economists predicting another economic crash in the next two years. Racial discrimination and social tension is the worst it's been since the 1960s.

When Trump actually follows a prepared script he's perfectly eloquent and the transcript is released with citations. He's mostly unscripted at rallies, which is why he tends to talk in circles. It makes him come across as more accessible and genuine than Hillary's focus-group-approved, 200-plus-days-without-an-unscripted-event disasters.