Fake News

[caroljane]

6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Use your brain or your brain will use you.

--Brant

 And be sure the brain which is using you is in fact your own.

The rationalizations around here to make half the world's population (it varies according to the latest crisis) deadly enemies of Trump, whom he is so valiantly and cunningly battling, have become  predictable corkscrews  of MAGA propaganda and mental laziness proudly displayed as "thinking".

I don't think so, if you will excuse the expression.

When did a panorama of smart disparate humans become Donny One-Note, the Stepford divorces?

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

 And be sure the brain which is using you is in fact your own.

The rationalizations around here to make half the world's population (it varies according to the latest crisis) deadly enemies of Trump, whom he is so valiantly and cunningly battling, have become  predictable corkscrews  of MAGA propaganda and mental laziness proudly displayed as "thinking".

I don't think so, if you will excuse the expression.

When did a panorama of smart disparate humans become Donny One-Note, the Stepford divorces?

No, no, nopee!

Blame Canada!!

--not Brant

Mothers Against Canada

(MAC)

[Brant Gaede]

This thread is Fake News 

The fake news is against Trump and Trump is against the fake news and he plays it like a fiddle.

Is Fake News news? No; it's fake. Is Fake News real? Sure.

--Brant

Remember the Maine!

[tmj]

Half the globe’s population are elitists? That kind of dilutes the term.

I bet , conservatively, 70% would want Their own Trump.

since like 1215

[anthony]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Use your brain or your brain will use you.

--Brant

A "brain" is what sent nerve transmissions to your fingers to type that -- and what selected what "that" was going to be? The brain is what determinists-skeptics believe is all that exists in men. Otherwise, I like it. How about: Use your mind or others will fill it for you. "Fake news".

[Brant Gaede]

If you chuck your brain you'll chuck your mind.

--Brant

and the autonomic nervous system

[anthony]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you chuck your brain you'll chuck your mind.

--Brant

and the autonomic nervous system

Yup. No argument. The very question of "body-(brain)-mind" separation is ludicrous.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, caroljane said:

 And be sure the brain which is using you is in fact your own.

The rationalizations around here to make half the world's population (it varies according to the latest crisis) deadly enemies of Trump, whom he is so valiantly and cunningly battling, have become  predictable corkscrews  of MAGA propaganda and mental laziness proudly displayed as "thinking".

I don't think so, if you will excuse the expression.

When did a panorama of smart disparate humans become Donny One-Note, the Stepford divorces?

Carol,

Is this argument by condescension? 

There's too much hatred in your post to argue rationally. But, me being me, I will try something.  

The good news is that your post does not represent reality. I mean that literally, not just words and inside heads talk.

I've mentioned before you live in a bubble where the stories you tell and learn within your bubble substitute reality. All who live within the bubble are like this.

Here's a little bit of hard evidence--measured and everything by serious people--if you can peek outside the bubble a little bit to actually look at it instead of knee-jerking with the default bubble dismissal. It's an article by Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few journalist who came from the mainstream press as a celebrity and still deserves that title. She doesn't use the term "bubble." She says "box." But it's the same thing. And it has a specific meaning, not just an "us" against a "them."

This is what it really means to think outside 'The Box'

The entire article is well worth reading, but the gist is here

Quote

 

If a man from Mars came to America and sampled information on the internet and on the news, he might reach some pretty firm conclusions about our society. We might appear universally violent, polarized, racist and more.  

But if that same Martian instead were to travel the United States, minus that information flow, he might reach entirely different conclusions. He’d see some big problems, to be sure. But he’d observe the vast majority of Americans living, working, playing and going to school together in relative harmony, day in and day out.

It’s not to say we don’t have monumental issues. It’s simply that every day, Americans from coast to coast commonly reach across lines of sex, race, religion, income level and fundamental disagreements to help each other try to address our problems.

The stark difference in impressions might be explained, in part, by the manipulatable nature of what I refer to as “The Box”— information we receive on the news, online, and through social media. In recent years, I’ve researched and reported on the industry that works on behalf of various paid interests to control information within The Box. They do so with assistance from PR groups, think tanks, social media, lobby groups, law firms, nonprofits, letters to the editor, blogs, LLCs, SuperPACs, politicians, Hollywood, news reporters and even comedians.

Their tactics can prove very effective. They sway opinion by making you think you’re an outlier — when you’re not — by portraying extremes as the norm and labeling certain views as unacceptable. They may seek to intimidate and bully you into silence by making you believe your views aren’t fit for pubic consumption. They controversialize those who present and report facts or opinions that are off-narrative.

In short, they spend billions of dollars convincing Americans to largely confine ourselves to the reality they’ve constructed in The Box. That’s the key to their control.

Now, along comes a study that seems to prove the point that real life can be far different from what’s portrayed in The Box. “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape” was conducted by a group called “More in Common,” which describes itself as an international think tank dedicated to easing political tensions.

Hidden Tribes found one-quarter of Americans (25 percent) are traditional or devoted conservatives, and 8 percent are progressive activists. But here’s what’s important: two-thirds of Americans don’t belong to either group. That large swath between the extremes is described as an “exhausted majority” of people who “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

The exhausted majority isn’t well represented in The Box.

Read that again just to make sure you don't miss it. Two thirds of Americans do not belong to traditional conservatives or progressives. I'm pretty sure this holds for Canada as well. Maybe even more tilted toward those who live and think outside the public communications box.

And even among the believers, you belong to the minority, the 8%. There are 25% who are your polar opposite and you should thank your lucky stars that they practice a religion that preaches love thine enemy.

There's more. You will generally not find elitists, especially monied elitists wielding actual power, among those two thirds. So your opening comment about some kind or rationalistic intent of us inferior but intelligent something-or-others around here to "make half the world's population (it varies according to the latest crisis) deadly enemies of Trump," can't be statistically correct and make any sense except within the bubble (the box).

Like it or not, reality is the final arbitrar, not your opinion. So the reality, the measured and observable reality verifiable by all, is that your bubble is not reality. It's a story constructed by specific monied interests. Nothing more. And you fell for it.

I don't think you notice, but Trump's main support comes from the two thirds, not the fringes. Not even the 25% conservatives, many of whom don't support him. Especially not the 8% progressives. And I don't think you notice it because I don't think you believe this two thirds exists. You haven't been told these people exist by your bubble authorities. So all those people obviously are a delusion by folks who talk about them, right?    

The true division is not conservative or progressive. To elitist bubble manipulators, this is for show. The true division is ruling class and commoners. And the commoners are nothing more than human livestock to the ruling class.

Trump's enemies are not half the world and will never be. They are the elitist ruling class assholes and those they have convinced to become true-believer followers, probably a total of 10-15%. This might come as a shock to you, but most people couldn't give a crap about politics or the issues true-believer people yell about constantly within the bubble as "social justice." Most people want to live their lives, earn their livings, raise their families, enjoy their hobbies and art/entertainment, and so on. It's not that they disagree with those yelling. They simply don't think about them much. 

They do begin to think about them, though, when their lives start becoming directly affected by policies they can't stand like PC language, being called a racist all the time for disagreeing with what is essentially propaganda, and so on. Sometimes they get pissed off at needless wars (where bubble manipulators always make a financial killing). And once they wake up, they do things like elect President Trump, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and so on.

Don't worry. Nobody is going to destroy the bubble you treat as a safe space, though. The pendulum will swing back the other way once this new wave of common sense libertarian-leaning leaders fix the mess your bubble masters have created. These two-thirds will go back to living their lives and go back to sleep politically. Then the elitists will be able to scheme, manipulate and cheat their way back into political power.

The enemies of Trump are a small minority of humanity. Can you believe it? The large numbers of people who choose Trump do so because they want him in office. They actually want him in office without being told to want that. Their want comes from within.

They exist. They exist everywhere except inside the bubble.

Trump hatred and all the weirdness that comes with it is not a rational argument. And hatred only works as an argument within the bubble, a tiny minority of humanity. That's why it's not working during this period where the majority wants to clean up the mess.

So right now at this point in time, if bubble living is what you insist on, you are in for a bad season.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From President Trump:

So Revealing! https://t.co/wR0Z4694ei

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2018

That's how fake anti-Trump fake news is.

It's all about power, not issues.

Also, It was hilarious when Colbert's audience applauded building the border wall. 

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, caroljane said:

 And be sure the brain which is using you is in fact your own...

Hey, Carol, check it out. Here's a video that MSK recently posted. With your seething hatred of black people and of the straw man monster Trump that you've decided to believe in, you should love this video of a righteous leftist attacking a black man, whom you equate with an ape, for wearing a MAGA hat:

 

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, caroljane said:

...predictable corkscrews of MAGA propaganda and mental laziness proudly displayed as "thinking".

I don't think so, if you will excuse the expression.

When did a panorama of smart disparate humans become Donny One-Note, the Stepford divorces?

Yeah, blah, blah, blah. We get it. You hate Trump, or the fictional version of Trump that you've chosen to believe in.

And you don't know why.

Boring as hell.

Do you have anything of substance? Anything other than your feelings?

You mention "mental laziness." Honestly, I've never seen anything of intellectual significance from you, Carol, beyond your expressions of your tastes and preferences in fictional literature. You seem to have some knowledge there, and also in regard to some of the other arts. You can deliver some substance, and even some depth on those topics.

Not so when it comes politics, economics, foreign policy, etc. All that you've got there is the sort of hollow snottiness that you display in the post quoted above.

Heh. It's not working. It's a pose. Your bluff has been called several times, and you've got nothing to back it up but more posing and bluffing.

J

[william.scherk]

From Axios on HBO:

The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

See the Jonathan Swann story here -- Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order
(NB "The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.")

From the Axios interview highlights:

Quote

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by william.scherk
"What would an authoritarian do?"

[Jonathan]

Is this journalism, or is it opinion?

https://apnews.com/7bc17837af16492b81e1f3fff913e3e5

Quote

"With seven days to go before high-stakes elections that he has sought to focus on fearmongering over immigration..."

Is that a fact or an opinion? Do the reporters know the difference?

 

Quote

"Trump, seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress, has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border."

Again, fact or opinion? How do the reporters know the president's motives? Are there any quotes to support their conclusions? Or are they just having feelings, and reporting those? As for "stoking anxiety," is that the way that the reporters framed their "news" when democrats took the same positions in the past? When they spoke with passion about stopping the threat of illegal immigration, was it reported as "stoking anxiety," or was it referred to more neutrally than that, because the reporters had different feelings about the people making the statements?

 

Quote

"An executive order would spark an uphill legal battle for Trump about whether the president has the unilateral ability to declare that children born in the U.S. to those living here illegally aren’t citizens. Most scholars think he can’t."

Really? Most scholars, eh? How did the reporters arrive at that conclusion? Where is the evidence to support the claim? Or did they just make it up based on their feelings?

[Peter]

William quoted President Trump, "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

Fox News said there are several other countries that allow babies born there to automatically be citizens of that country. We should stop the practice, though I think special consideration should be given to the children of illegal aliens, especially those who innocently think of themselves as Americans after many years of living here.

To those who are marching here now as a publicity stunt, I say the heck with them, and the heck with Mexico. We should load them on trucks and immediately send them back  . . . maybe to the southern Mexican border. If Mexico complains about us violating their borders, they don’t have a moral leg to stand on. Let those illegals return to their countries and turn them into “Edens” like the United States. Peter   

Edited for brevity. From: "May, Dennis To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Collectivists May Hasten Robotics Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:24:58 -0500. I wrote: >In economically depressed areas the Federal Government pays a significant fraction of employee wages including foreign workers wages.  The foreigner workers get paid more than the American workers because they are taxed less.

Jimmy Wales wrote: >I'm not sure I follow you here.  What program are you talking about, in which foreign workers are paid by the Federal government?  In what way do foreign workers get paid more because they are taxed less?

 >Can you give a specific example of a firm or industry where this is true?

Right here in Milan Missouri both ConAgra [closed now] and Premium Standard Farms [owned by Continental Grain] have federal government subsidized workers.  It is part of the same program where people can be hired for less than minimum wage in economically distressed areas - applies to several towns in this area. The foreign workers that come in do not get taxed the same as US workers - which amounts to a several dollars an hour pay raise above US workers.  As a result more and more local small businesses have become foreign owned.  There are a whole number of other issues which also drain money locally involving the schools, health care, welfare, court translators, police, crime, etc. Dennis May

From: Allen Weingarten To: objectivism Subject: Re: OWL: Citizenship Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:18:46 -0400. In order to address the critique by Eyal Mozes, let me summarize the position I presented on Citizenship. I began with the thesis that membership in a group must meet requirements to preserve that group, and that the guiding principle for membership in a social group has to be mutual advantage. On this basis, I concluded that there ought to be requirements for citizenship, which included a commitment to protect our inalienable rights. I argued that if non-citizens had the advantages of citizenship, coupled with the advantages of disloyalty, this would undermine the nation.

Then, I applied this position to the issue of immigration. The key principle was that it should be for the benefit of America, whereas guests in one’s home have no rights, particularly when there is disloyalty. The second principle was that just as people have a right to leave an organization, that organization must have the right to expel them. I further stated that our republic has an implicit contract among its citizens, and that if we had a non-national purpose, with the objective of protecting non-citizens, that would not merely require a constitutional amendment, but a new contract. There would be no foundation for such an approach, as it would provide benefits without obligations . . . . However, if my wording did not make the context clear, let me rephrase it. All men have inalienable rights, but outside of these, we have no obligations toward our guests. So let me reiterate that when I address non-citizens it is not to deny the protection of their inalienable rights. Rather it is to deny that citizens have any obligation to provide them with benefits, and most specifically to allow them to enter or remain in America. The method of argument of Mr. Mozes is to conflate the negative inalienable rights with the obligation to provide positive benefits. Then he attacks the arguments against the latter, by denying the straw man of the former. He does not even address the arguments against the latter. So one does not even know whether Mr. Mozes is of the view that guests in one’s home have the right to remain?

A better argument would have been to point out that no one should have positive rights, but only inalienable rights. Consequently, one might claim that there is no difference between immigrants and citizens. However, there are subtle differences. For example, an American in a foreign land warrants the protection of our government. Conversely, the immigrant who returns to his native land has no right to such protection. Similarly, the protection of the safety of Americans does not apply to those who cross our borders illegally, such as preventing their dehydration. Thus citizens are entitled to certain benefits that are not possessed by non-citizens . . . . Finally, Tom Sowell asks: Do those "citizen of the world" types, who think we should open our borders to free immigration, leave their front doors open at night when they go to sleep, with a "Welcome Neighbor" neon sign blinking over it? Yet their neighbors are probably more similar to themselves than many people who are immigrating here from around the world. Weingarten

[Brant Gaede]

20 hours ago, caroljane said:

 And be sure the brain which is using you is in fact your own.

The rationalizations around here to make half the world's population (it varies according to the latest crisis) deadly enemies of Trump, whom he is so valiantly and cunningly battling, have become  predictable corkscrews  of MAGA propaganda and mental laziness proudly displayed as "thinking".

I don't think so, if you will excuse the expression.

When did a panorama of smart disparate humans become Donny One-Note, the Stepford divorces?

Carol, you've wandered into a battlefield and, worse, too close to not your side. The United States is politically devolving into a true and actual civil war, the previous iteration of which actually was the war of Southern Succession --not civil.

It's not that Americans are so much for Trump as against the ruling intellectual class which has dominated this country since the 1930s. Waking up to their slavery has pissed them off. Hence it has become less congenial and intellectual. It now seems to be mostly about Trump, naturally antithetical to the likes of Stephen Boydstun and George H. Smith.

The current structure of OL drives out many who cannot create or contribute to threads for they are soon buried by Trump this and Trump that. Trump is a valuable and necessary locus but he is also too much.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The current structure of OL drives out many who cannot create or contribute to threads for they are soon buried by Trump this and Trump that.

Brant,

It'll get better after the midterms.

Believe it or not, Trump this and Trump that on OL is being read and making a difference out there in the real world. Lurkers don't post much (and I don't blame them--who wants to be slimed by the left once their thoughts are on record in public?), but they do read. Hopefully, the content here will give them the oomph to go vote. I believe it does for many (and their non-OL-reading families and friends by extension).

After the midterms, I don't see any false anti-Trump narrative that will need much more than a swat to combat. So I, personally, can get to a topic I am getting quite passionate about--analyzing Rand's storytelling techniques in light of how they do it in modern entertainment, neuroscience and modern psychology and evolutionary theories about story.

Apropos, Ayn Rand interrupted writing The Fountainhead for a long time in order to campaign for Wilkie.

Michael

[anthony]

Peter's contribution reminds me of a quote by Sergei Rachmaninoff on becoming an American citizen in 1943: "This is the only place on earth where a human being is respected for what he is and what he does, and it does not matter who he is and where he came from". (Quote found at Stephen Hicks' website).

That brings to mind the stirring poem: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..."

An aspect overlooked I think, about those "masses" of Europeans, they were not just poor and repressed, but also trapped inside a class system in their home countries, whose rigidity a man and woman and their children could never break out of, or rarely. Freedom to them meant a classless society of individuals, where only your competence, character and effort counted.

But, and what matters most, "free" meant and still means - being free from others - and - from government help.  What amount I know about that period in the USA, mostly from novels, my impression is one was left completely to one's own devices, to "sink or swim" (and sure, plus the small assistance and hard labor one could find in communities of other immigrants of the same country and language).

I notice that great Statue poem is increasingly mentioned again, and I think it's invoked for some invalid or suspect reasons--mostly by Leftians who wish for an instant return to that time, of pretty much "open borders". Well, fine. The trouble is, they, the early Left, had managed to screw up the idea of a "free" nation. A welfare state is not free (apart from 'free' things). Now they believe, by virtue of opening up borders, they will 'feel good': hospitable, generous, noble, altruistic, moral - etc. -- Nice feelings at no cost. Don't ask them: Who pays...?

So the government and nation is not the same as it was - ironically, as the result of Left meddling, the tail is not going to wag the dog and bring that era back by merely opening borders. To those potential immigrants who want to enjoy the freedom they won't find at home and to work and improve their lives, i.e., entering for the right reasons, one has to feel sympathy. To be free, partly means being free from state help, since if a citizen is going to be given welfare today, it is a certainty he or his offspring will be forced to provide it to any and all others, tomorrow.

[Peter]

Legal immigrants are always welcome. CBS news just quoted Trump saying, he can with just his pen, end citizenship for undocumented babies, but Paul Ryan, leader of the House is saying no he can’t. Court challenges would immediately start fueled by the 14^th amendment to the Constitution.  Peter

Notes. whYNOT once wrote: A passing comment from Thomas Sowell's recent column: "The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go further". end quote

[tmj]

The pundits on MSM are all going to sound a lot more Kavanaugh. They are going to be strict constitutionalists , go figure.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 hours ago, caroljane said:

Use your brain or your brain will use you.

--Brant

Carol,

A thought just crossed my mind.

Since you didn't like Brant's saying so much, may I suggest a variation?

Use your bubble or your bubble will use you.

   

Michael

[Jonathan]

16 hours ago, Peter said:

Legal immigrants are always welcome. CBS news just quoted Trump saying, he can with just his pen, end citizenship for undocumented babies, but Paul Ryan, leader of the House is saying no he can’t. Court challenges would immediately start fueled by the 14^th amendment to the Constitution.  Peter

 

 

Notes. whYNOT once wrote: A passing comment from Thomas Sowell's recent column: "The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go further". end quote

 

 

Ryan, as well as the left and its lapdog media, have already contructed a straw man argument about Trump's reasoning, motives, and his wishing to abuse power and ignore law. They're foaming about their belief that Trump believes that he can just change the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. This ain't a dictatorship, even though Trump thinks it is. That kind of thing. Yeah. Um, pick up on the clues, assholes. The idea would be for Trump to present the case that the wording of 14A does not provide citizenship to children born of parents who are here illegally, nor do the arguments presented at the time of ratification of 14A, and that any order that Trump would sign would merely recognize, affirm and clarify what many have mistakenly assumed and falsely taken for granted has never actually been a Constitutional tenet.

The case that modern advocates of birthright citizenship cite is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. See? Toldja so! Supreme Court already decided it! Nya nya nana nya!

Yeah, but, oops, the parents weren't here illegally. It's not all said and done and packed away neatly just cuz that's the Narrative that the left and people like Ryan want to believe.

J

[Jonathan]

The left's big word the week is "dogwhistle." Everything is a dogwhistle. Trump says that he likes pancakes and sausage for breakfast? That's a dogwhistle to alt right white supremacists. Trump supporters say they love liberty and want freedom? Fucking racist dogwhistle! Dogwhistle, dogwhistle!

J

 

[Peter]

Fox News had a montage of leftians saying "dog whistle." Rush Limbaugh may do the same tomorrow. The Left goes to the same person or persons for "talking points and sanctioned phrases" according to Rush and that is why they all repeat the same words. They don't even have freedom of speech amidst their own ilk~  

[Ellen Stuttle]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

An aspect overlooked I think, about those "masses" of Europeans, they were not just poor and repressed, but also trapped inside a class system in their home countries, whose rigidity a man and woman and their children could never break out of, or rarely. Freedom to them meant a classless society of individuals, where only your competence, character and effort counted.

But, and what matters most, "free" meant and still means - being free from others - and - from government help.  [....]

[....] A welfare state is not free (apart from 'free' things). Now they [the "Leftians"] believe, by virtue of opening up borders, they will 'feel good': hospitable, generous, noble, altruistic, moral - etc. -- Nice feelings at no cost. Don't ask them: Who pays....?

The land of opportunity has become the land of hand-outs.

"I want to be in America.
Everything's free in America."
--- from "West Side Story"

(Which isn't to say that there aren't still plenty of immigrants to the U.S. who want to work and get ahead and make a better life for their children - the whole nine yards - just like in the pre-freebies days.)

Ellen

[Jonathan]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The land of opportunity has become the land of hand-outs.

"I want to be in America.
Everything's free in America."
--- from "West Side Story"

(Which isn't to say that there aren't still plenty of immigrants to the U.S. who want to work and get ahead and make a better life for their children - the whole nine yards - just like in the pre-freebies days.)

Ellen

The left has been practicing LBJ's strategy of group voter dependency since, well, since LBJ. "I’ll have those n*****s voting democratic for two hundred years," has been expanded to a universal policy.