The prevalence of people who support Trump, but otherwise seem reasonable, continues to amaze and horrify me.
I can at least wrap my head around the belief that Trump is the lesser evil (though I strongly disagree), but bona fide Trump supporters are beyond my understanding. I fear that they are impervious to reason; they dismiss all opposing evidence as "media bias", "argument from authority", or (best of all) "a lot of words".
That seems to be the trend around here, certainly.
...Are you seriously going to dismiss pages and pages of history because you don't like the guy who wrote it? I understand that facts are stubborn things, but this is rather audacious.
No, I'm going to dismiss the guy's
interpretation of history - which begins with his first use of the word leftist - because he lacks any peer-reviewed work, research, credentials, or really anything that would make his
interpretation credible against the literal library shelves full of work that doesn't draw silly conclusions based on the writers' personal interpretations.
Fascism was founded by people who explicitly opposed the tenets of what was considered leftist political thought - and leftist political parties, including Labour, The Social Democrats, and the Communist Parties - in the era in which it developed. It renewed an interest in social conservativism and opposed equality. Adopting modern interpretations, it was supported directly by white nationalists, racist paramilitaries, and the areas of the political arena that favour social stratification. It opposed constitutional rights in all forms, and especially those that led to representative governance. By any measurement stick, fasicism was not associated with what was considered the left wing then, or now. Incidentally, you'll note that nowhere have I actually said fascism is an explicitly right-wing movement either. In point of fact - as as actual credible sources contend - fascism contained a mix of policies from all aspects of the political spectrum, but was defined more by its method of governing, its social conservativism, and its opposition to both Communism and representative democracies. It is frequently placed on the far right as a counter-equivalent to Communism on the far left, but in practice neither designation is truly appropriate. Placing fascism in the early 20th century on the political left makes about as much sense as placing anarchism in the early 20th century on the far right - both miss the point spectacularly.
Of course, reading your other
bat**** nutty political authority source gives me some idea of where this crazy interpretation of history is coming from.
There you go again with the argument from authority. The truth is the truth no matter who says it.
Since you missed it last time: WHAT. EVIDENCE.
On the contrary, every time Trump opens his mouth, all of the pundits rush to "fact-check" whatever he says. This is the case even for statements that are clearly metaphorical, such as "Obama is the leader of ISIS."
And nearly every time he is fact-checked, he's wrong.Ah, but you see, intent doesn't matter. Contrary to the FBI statement, mishandling classified information is a crime regardless of whether there is an intent to supply it to an enemy or not.
Here is another example. Clinton stated under oath that she did not send or receive classified information on her private server. The FBI determined that she did. This is prima facie perjury.
Keep your day job, law enforcement or prosecution is not for you. Here's a non-legalese version.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html You can always read the
sections yourself. Moreover, to prove perjury you must prove the person knew that the statement was false; the specifics on the few classified emails the FBI did find do not make it clear that Clinton knew that was the case.
By your own standards, I should disregard that article because the author is an uncredentialed crank whose objectivity is under serious question.
I'm only quoting this because it made me actually laugh out loud. The guy pulling crank authors and political operatives with no pretext of objectivity out of his ass as sources has a problem with a researched and cited NewsWeek piece. Are we done? I think we're done.
1 and 4 don't affect average people. 2 and 3 would actually help average people. I disagree with the conclusions of the linked articles.
Libel laws don't affect average people? Tell me, have you heard of Popehat and/or Ken White? How about FIRE? The ACLU? Libel laws absolutely affect average people.
I'm not sure how an economic recession in which jobs are invariably lost and disproportionately affects the poor and middle class actually helps people. Then again, I'm sure there's an explanation in a world in which fascism is a movement of the political left. Do we get to hear how that's the case, or is this going to be another round of dodgeball?
Your NAFTA nuttiness is a topic all its own. Scotty made a good enough rebuttal for now.
Putting the US into yet another middle eastern conflict absolutely affects average people. First off, the military draws much of its rank and file from the poor and middle classes (after all, like Trump, why would the rich both with military service even if they were drafted?). Second, any idea of the cost to your national debt that the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos racked up? It wasn't a benefit, that's for damn sure. The Congressional Budget Office currently pegs the combined conflicts there at a total cost of 2.4 TRILLION by 2017.
Also: argument from authority is only a fallacy when you quote sources operating outside their area of expertise, or authorities who are not true experts. Have a gander in the mirror before you keep invoking it.
