Darrell Hougen
-
Posts
1,159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Darrell Hougen
-
-
"Context" shouldn't be used as an excuse for playing it "deuces wild."
Context dropping is never okay. That leads to rationalism. It's nice to know that people on here are cognizant of the problem of rationalism in the application of objectivish principles to questions such as immigration. And, we don't want to be rationalists with respect to the question of property rights and free speech either.
Clearly, some of the giant tech companies have been influenced by the government and have had influence on the government. In fact, part of the current problem is that the tech companies are afraid of being regulated. That's exactly why they're going after Alex Jones and other right-leaning media. They've been threatened by members of Congress. Mostly by Democrats, but also by RINOs.
This movement really got started with the revelation that Cambridge Analytica had used Facebook data to help Donald Trump get elected president. That's what really set off people on the left. That's what caused people to delete their Facebook accounts. I know, because of friend of my daughter deleted her Facebook account over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
So, when we start accusing big tech companies of being biased and calling for regulation of them like utilities, we should think twice. We may just end up making the problem worse. How do we know that those regulations won't include proscriptions against posting "fake news?" How do we know that "fake news" won't be interpreted as anything that favors Trump?
The fact is that we don't know what will happen, but we can be pretty sure that we won't control the process. Isn't it much better, in this case, to defend the right of property owners to determine how their properties will be used? Isn't it better to defend the right of Facebook to delete Alex Jones's content than to risk having the government involved in policing websites?
If Alex Jones has a worthwhile product, he will survive unfair treatment by the tech giants. Perhaps he will end up putting a dent in their profits by attracting a sizable chunk of their users away to his platform. That's how things should work in the marketplace. In my opinion, short term pain is better than the long term pain of having the government deeply involved in determining what content we can and can't view on the internet.
-
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is at it again. Unwilling to abide by the Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the commission has issued another ruling targeting the same baker for essentially the same "crime" again -- the crime of having his own opinion.
COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN
QuoteOn the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips’ shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina’s transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods. (RELATED: Christian Baker Prevails At Supreme Court In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Dispute)
In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.
Scardina filed a complaint with the civil rights commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The matter was held in abeyance while the Supreme Court adjudicated the Masterpiece case.
Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination.
Darrell
-
1
-
-
Hi All,
A friend pointed out a March 17 article about the Steele dossier that goes into incredible detail about who the players were and what their roles were in creating and disseminating the dossier. I've only started reading it, but it appears to contain a treasure trove of information about the incestuous relationships between the government, the media, Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and so on. It appears quite interesting.
Here is a link.
Darrell
-
1
-
-
You know there are four kinds of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and black lives ...
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand propagandists do.
Hi Michael,
A while back I became familiar with the term, "motte and bailey." (My apologies if you're already familiar with the term.) The term originates as a description of a certain kind of fortification in which there is a highly fortified keep (or motte) surrounded by a less well fortified but generally much larger courtyard (or bailey). The smaller motte is easier to defend, while the larger bailey is more difficult to defend.
As an argument, a motte and bailey is, "a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation," in which the arguer switches between an easily defended statement such as, "the climate is changing," and a harder to defend claim such as, "man-made global warming will have catastrophic effects on our environment." Whenever attacked, the person putting forth the motte and bailey position retreats to the stronger assertion that the climate is changing. Once the attacker gives up attempting to assail the stronger position, the arguer reverts to asserting the truth of the weaker bailey position that man is to blame and that the consequences will be catastrophic if "we" don't do something about it. Anyone who questions the bailey is accused of questioning the motte.
In my view, the same thing is going on here. The assertion is made that, "the Russians interfered in the election." The motte is that they interfered in the election campaign and attempted to hack voting machines. The bailey is that they actually changed a sufficient number of votes to change the results of the election by either hacking voting machines or by swaying the decisions of weak minded voters.
There is little doubt that the Russians bought ads on Facebook. They may have also hacked the DNC, Clinton campaign servers, and interfered in other ways. The question is whether they actually swayed the opinions of a sufficient number of voters to change the election. There is very little evidence to support the latter assertion.
Somehow, we are supposed to believe that sweet, innocent, Hillary Clinton's visionary campaign was derailed by insidious Russian influence and that Trump is a secret Bolshevik (read "Manchurian") candidate. Yet, the evidence only supports a much weaker assertion of feeble attempts to interfere in the campaign. Moreover, there is no evidence that Trump was involved in any way.
In my opinion, a fair number of leftist arguments fit the motte and bailey mold.
Darrell
-
1
-
1
-
-
DNC chair Tom Perez seen carrying $1840 Louis Vuitton bag after calling "socialism" future of party.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/30/tom-perez-louis-vuitton-travel-bag/
Nice imagery.
Darrell
-
Looks like the Daily Caller got to ask a question at Trump's press conference. That was almost more than the lefty media could take.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/30/media-attacks-daily-caller-trump-question/
Darrell
-
Hi Michael,
I hear you on Alex Jones. I guess I don't have enough hours in the day to listen to or watch InfoWars, so I'll let you do that for me. I also agree that the so called "MSM" is often less than accurate --- that's for you Jonathan.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-en-dan-rather-truth-20151229-story.html
Triggered
I think the term "triggered" came out of academia --- from leftists in academia to be more precise. As I understand it, the term was originally used in a serious manner to characterize the response of people who have been traumatized in the past by an awful experience such as rape to a stimulus that might cause them to relive their memory. It's the way a person with PTSD responds to certain stimuli. It causes psychological distress in some people when exposed to certain stimuli.
The problem started when leftists started claiming that people on the right were triggering psychological distress by putting forth their theories on politics or society. They then started suggesting that right-wingers be banned from speaking or that they at least be required to give a "trigger-warning" before being allowed to say anything. In short, it became an attack on freedom of speech. Never discussed was the idea that people with PTSD might want to stay away from speakers or events that might cause them distress.
Of course, the backlash has been to mock the idea of being triggered --- I think that most of the people using that as an excuse to shut down speech with which they disagree deserve to be mocked --- and I think that's when the term "snowflake" came into usage.
Fusion GPS
I did read an article on Fox News from last November that the Washington Free Beacon had originally hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. However, according to the Beacon, "The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign."
https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/
Cheers,
Darrell
-
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
I am Infowars friendly.
Hi Michael,
I guess I've gotten burned by InfoWars inaccuracies before, so I generally steer clear of them. Of course, if your goal is to see what other people are looking at, then you should go where everyone else goes. My goal is to try to find accurate information.
I like Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller probably has some other good reporters too. Breitbart has been hot and cold. So has PJMedia. I like it when they have original material and not just opinion pieces or regurgitated material from the left-stream media.
The Daily Caller broke the story about Stefan Halper trying to spearfish George Papadopolous and Carter Page for example. They were the first outlet to release Halper's name and did original reporting based on a source familiar with the situation. I also trust their veracity. InfoWars, not so much.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/25/george-papadopoulos-london-emails/
Darrell
-
45 minutes ago, william.scherk said:
This seems somehow wrong ... Trump meeting with Nazi Leader of the European Union. What gives?
InfoWars? Really?
-
Hi Michael,
I was looking at an article in the Daily Caller and that article says that Bush denied any connection to the Steele Dossier. More significantly, it says that the articles in the Spectator and BBC that said Bush was behind the dossier subsequently retracted their claims. The linked Reuters article seems to back up that assertion.
I also seem to remember reading elsewhere that no Republicans had anything to do with dossier. That it was purely a creation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Not sure what you think about that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele-idUSKBN14W0HN
Darrell
-
On 7/23/2018 at 10:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Peter,
I did some more digging just to get some of the nuance straight.
The person who actually funded the original Steele stuff was billionaire Paul Singer, owner of The Washington Free Beacon (a neocon journal). He backed Jeb at first during the primaries and during that time (around June 2015) hired Fusion GPS (who hired Steele) to dig up dirt on Trump. After Trump won the primaries, Singer bowed out, but handed the ball off to Clinton in disgust. But it had to be hidden. Enter the law firm Perkins Coie, Obama's and Clinton's lawyer pals. Singer and Perkins Coie did their thing, then Clinton and Perkins Coie did their thing. Then surprise surprise, Perkins Coie hired Fusions GPS (thus Steele) for getting dirt on Trump for Clinton. What a coincidence!
And everybody has plausible deniability.
Since then, both Singer and The Washington Free Beacon have sworn on a stack of Bibles that the dirt they paid Steele to get for them was not the same dirt Steel got for Clinton. So, according to them, nothing Singer paid Fusion GPS (thus Steele) for went into the Steele Dossier (paid for by Clinton to Fusion GPS, thus Steele). Yeah, right... Neocons and spooks would never lie... We can trust them...
Now get this. Around October 2015, to Jeb's chagrin, Singer switched his support over to Rubio and kept the Fusion GPS contract running in overdrive. This is probably when the Dossier started taking shape for real rather than just earlier stuff about women, Trump University, and so on. That only stopped when Trump won the primaries. But that explains the following from yesterday:
Rubio: Carter Page FISA Surveillance Was Justified By More Than Steele Dossier
TaDaa!
Can't let a big-ass donor like Singer look like the fool he is...
But don't think Jeb and Steele aren't friends and this was all Rubio. They are all close neocon buds. So this move by Singer of sending Fusion GPS and Steele through Perkins Coie to Clinton was sanctioned by Jeb and all the Bushes. And by Rubio, for that matter...
Singer would not have done it otherwise.
I can get you links if you like, but you have to dig through a lot of extra stuff before this gets clear. It's all there, though...
Michael
Hi Michael,
Long time no see. Thanks for fixing my display name --- I'll be checking in a second to see if it is actually fixed --- and thanks for doing some background research on FISA warrant. I wasn't aware of the entire backstory. The right leaning news sites tend to only focus on the Clinton/DNC connection to Fusion GPS and Steele. I'll have to dig up what they said again.
Oh, BTW, I ended up voting for Trump. I couldn't bear the idea of the criminal Hillary being president. So never say "never" I guess. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by his policies. I've also found myself defending him from the relentless assaults of the left-leaning press.
Have a good evening.
Darrell
-
1
-
-
I looked and don't see any recent articles about Ed Cline on this forum, so I'm assuming that his plight has not been discussed. I'm assuming most people know who he is. He has contributed to this forum in the past. At any rate, I'm very concerned about his current situation. The short version of the back story is this: Ed has written articles on his Rule of Reason blog that are critical of ISIS. ISIS put him on a hit list. Consequently, the FBI visited him to warn him about the hit list. He made the mistake of telling his landlord why the FBI visited him and his landlord has told him that he must leave.
A friend of Ed's set up a GoFundMe page to help Ed raise the money that he needs to move. You can visit it to learn more about his situation and to donate if you feel like it.
Recently, Front Page Magazine wrote an article about Ed's plight.
Based on that article, I decided to write a letter (in the form of an email message) to Ed's landlord expressing my displeasure over their actions. Here is a copy of my letter and I encourage others to also contact his landlord. Perhaps if they realize that their move is generating negative publicity, they will relent.
To office@lawsonenterprisesinc.com
Hi,I don't know you and you don't know me, however I am very disturbed by some of the reports I have heard about your company. In particular, I have heard that you plan to evict one of your tenants as a result of a threat that he received from a foreign terrorist organization. I find that offensive.
I know that man that you intend to evict. I don't know him personally, but I have long followed his career and I know him to be a man of courage and principle. I also know that he is getting old and is not a man of means. He has continued his entire life to fight the good fight, to support himself, to defend American values, and to conduct himself with virtue and integrity. And for that, you have decided to kick him to the street.
I don't know what kinds of values you have or pretend to have, but there can be little excuse for treating an honest hard working American in the manner that you apparently intend. ISIS may have threatened him, but to pretend that you are evicting him for the safety of your other tenants is tantamount to hiding behind the skirts of women. ISIS is not an immediate threat to anyone on American soil and to pretend that it is begs the question of your actual motives. Though I don't know you, I can only imagine what values you must secretly support when you so easily turn your back on a virtuous and patriotic American.
I simply ask that you reconsider your proposed action. Perhaps some soul searching is in order. What do you truly believe and why? Do you consider yourself a patriotic American? Or are you secretly an enemy of the values that made this country great?
I intend to publish this note as an open letter and to encourage others to contact you. If you have no character, at least consider your reputation.
Sincerely,
Darrell Hougen
-
I'll get back to answering responses to my earlier post, but I want to discuss something else that has been bothering me about Trump.
Donald Trump has a particular way of carrying on a political discourse. Whenever a reporter asks him a question like, "So and so criticized you in such and such fashion. What is your response?" His response is typically to attack the source.
Everyone knows that attacking the source of the question is a form of logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. Democrats use such tactics all the time and that in itself is telling, but I want to focus on the nature of Trump's attacks for a moment.
His general response to being questioned is to say that his interlocutor is small or unimportant or, if it is a publication, that it doesn't have many readers or that it is losing readership. That should set off alarm bells right there because Trump obviously thinks little people aren't deserving of respect and that their questions can safely be ignored. But, there is something more troubling about the nature of his attacks.
To say that it is safe to ignore little people is essentially to say that little people are wrong and that, conversely, big people are right. In other words, since Trump engages in such tactics all the time, one can only conclude that he deeply believes in the logical fallacy that might makes right.
The conclusion that Trump actually does believe that might makes right is born out by his open and apparent admiration for tyrants.
For example, here is an Wall Street Journal blog about Trump praising and defending Putin.
QuoteAfter Mr. Putin called the New York businessman “colorful and talented” last week, Mr. Trump said he was “honored.” On Sunday, Mr. Trump defended his response. “He’s a strong leader. And I’m not going to be politically correct,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think it would be a positive thing if Russia and the United States actually got along.”
Mr. Trump also disputed that journalists who challenge Mr. Putin have been murdered. The Committee to Protect Journalists, which tracks and researches deaths of reporters worldwide, said 36 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 1992.
“Do you know the names of the reporters that he’s killed?” Mr. Trump asked ABC’s George Stephanopolous. “Nobody has proved that he’s killed anybody.
In this respect, Trump hasn't changed in the last quarter century. Here is an excerpt from a 1990 Playboy interview:
QuoteOn the other hand, you were invited to consider building a luxury hotel in Moscow a few years ago. What was your trip to Moscow like?
It was not long after the Korean plane was shot down over Russia. There I am up in my plane when my pilot announces, "We are now fly ing over the Soviet Union," and I'm thinking to myself, What the hell am I doing here? Then I look out the window and see two Russian fighter planes . . . I later found out, guiding us in. I had insisted on having two Russian colonels flying with me-I felt safer, and my pilot doesn't speak great Russian, which is putting it mildly, and I didn’t want problems in radio communications.Once you got to Moscow, how did the negotiations go?
I told them, "Guys, you have a basic problem. Far as real estate is concerned, it’s impossible to get title to Russian land, since the government owns it all. What kind of financing are you gonna get on a building where the land is owned by the goddamned motherland?” They said, "No problem, Mr. Trump. We will work out lease arrangements.” I said, "I want ownership, not leases.” They came up with a solution: “Mr. Trump, we form a committee with ten people, of which seven are Russian and three are your representatives, and all disputes will be resolved in this manner.” I thought to myself, Shit, seven to three-are we dealing in the world of the make-believe here or what?What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?
I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.You mean firm hand as in China?
When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak ... as being spit on by the rest of the world--Why is Gorbachev not firm enough?
I predict he will be overthrown, because he has shown extraordinary weakness. Suddenly, for the first time ever, there are coal-miner strikes and brush fires everywhere- which will all ultimately lead to a violent revolution. Yet Gorbachev is getting credit for being a wonderful leader and we should continue giving him credit, because he's destroying the Soviet Union. But his giving an inch is going to end up costing him and all his friends what they most cherish-their jobs.Of course, strength in defense of virtue is itself a virtue, but the admiration of strength for the sake of strength is a dangerous character flaw.
Darrell
-
Michael, You said:
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:I disagree with this attribution since it conflates two different things that don't belong together into one.
The first is the right to make propaganda. That right is something Trump would never negotiate or even dream of infringing.
But earlier, you said:
On 2/28/2016 at 7:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech?
He would never do that and, like I said, Sarah Palin would slap him silly.
He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him. He's scaring them to get them to pipe down. He's being unpredictable. Since they are playing dirty with him, he's playing dirty right back. That's not 100% accurate, but it's in the ballpark.
So which is it? Is he negotiating over the right to make propaganda or not? If Trump wishes to negotiate over the "level of propaganda" then he wishes to negotiate over the "right to make propaganda."
Continuing with your argument:
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:The other is the right to be immune from the consequences of attacking someone. Nobody has that right. This is a person thing, an individual citizen thing, not a law thing. If someone runs nasty propaganda against you, you have every right to punch back. And punch harder if you can. All citizens have that right. And if you punch harder, the person who got walloped by the counterpunch and is seeing birdies circling over his head has no right to expect the government to protect his right to make nasty propaganda and be immune from all consequences from the victim. The counterpuncher has the same right the puncher does.
...
Accurate identification of facts and principles, including contexts, are important.
I argue for that.
Michael
The right to do something means the right to be immune from any legal consequences for doing that thing. The right to create propaganda means the right to be immune from criminal prosecution or civil suits if one creates propaganda.
I would go further. Because many pronouncements made by pundits and others are made with incomplete information or involve vaguely worded statements or predictions of future events, it is often difficult to tell whether a person honestly believes a statement to be true or not. Therefore, a wide degree of latitude should be given in the realm of political speech involving public individuals to make untrue statements.
The standard was set in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. So later, when General William Westmoreland sued CBS News for libel, he was eventually forced to withdraw the case before it went to a jury and with no damages awarded.
QuoteWestmoreland v. CBS was a $120 million libel suit brought in 1982 by former U.S. Army Chief of Staff General William Westmoreland against CBS, Inc. for broadcasting a documentary entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. Westmoreland also sued the documentary's narrator, investigative reporter Mike Wallace; the producer, investigative journalist and best-selling author George Crile, and the former CIA analyst, Sam Adams, who originally broke the story on which the broadcast was based.
Westmoreland's claims were governed by the landmark New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which held that, in order to recover for defamation, a "public figure" like Westmoreland must prove that the defendant made the statements in question with "actual malice" (essentially, with knowledge, or reckless disregard, of falsity).[1]
...
Westmoreland's decision to dismiss the case before the jury reached a decision prevented an appeal that might have created a legal landmark. Instead, this high-profile case provided a practical demonstration of what many already understood: That any public figure seeking damages for libel must follow the stringent standards set in the precedent of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Further, a public figure must prove actual malice, as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, even in the face of allegations of media misconduct.[1]
Finally, the case demonstrated an old adage: bringing a libel suit is generally a poor way to burnish a reputation. Westmoreland's suit brought greater attention to the CBS documentary and its allegations against him; the testimony of high-ranking military officers at trial provided further support for those allegations, in a highly public forum. Allegations that otherwise might have been forgotten are now part of any Westmoreland biography.[7][10]
The 1982 suit involved a general, not a president. I shudder to think what kind of contortions our current justices might subject the law to in order to uphold a verdict in favor of a sitting president.
That doesn't mean that a person can't fight back, but the proper way to fight back is to create counter-propaganda, to call out the other person if you think he is lying, to attempt to win in the court of public opinion, not in the judicial courts.
There is already evidence that Trump doesn't particularly care for free speech. In the battle between Michael Mann (of global warming hockey stick fame) and Mark Steyn, Trump has evidently decided to side with Mann.
Quote... Trump didn't like National Review coming at him. So over the weekend he Tweeted an approving link to a two-year-old column arguing that National Review is doomed. Unfortunately for me, its thesis is that National Review is doomed because of the Michael E Mann lawsuit. So, when it comes to global-warming fanatics vs free speech, Trump is apparently cheering for the global-warming fanatics.
If you don't know anything about the case, it involves a libel lawsuit that Mann filed against Steyn when Steyn had the temerity to call him a fraud. It probably should have been summarily dismissed, but it has been dragging on through pre-trial motions for 4 years. The problem is that the process is the punishment for ordinary people that don't have deep pockets. So, the idea of a president or his minions filing defamation suits is truly troubling. So is the idea of weakening the legal protections against such suits.
There is also the libel suit that Trump himself filed against Bill Maher. Now, while I detest Maher, he is an entertainer and his right to make fun of public figures must be protected. Here is the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc0JJi71MEc
Sorry, I don't know how to make the video show up in the post.
Eventually, Trump withdrew the lawsuit. He probably figured that the case was unwinnable but reserved the possibility of refiling the suit in the future. Perhaps that is why he wants to get the law changed. Maybe he is still pissed at Maher. Trump seems to have a long memory for slights or supposed injuries. He still can't get over the fact that Cruz won Iowa.
Darrell
-
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Darrell,
Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech?
He would never do that and, like I said, Sarah Palin would slap him silly.
He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him. He's scaring them to get them to pipe down. He's being unpredictable. Since they are playing dirty with him, he's playing dirty right back. That's not 100% accurate, but it's in the ballpark.
Trump is not preaching or taking a test of ideological purity. He's winning an election against some very powerful, nasty, immoral people who have been screwing this country over for a long, long time. And he's beating them at their own game.
Don't expect it to be pretty. If you want pretty, you are going to get more of the same people who are screwing over the country.
I, as a typical Trump supporter, see all this clearly. I have little doubt others like me see it, too.
Just look at how many people are voting for Trump. And keep watching because they are going to keep voting.
Don't forget, many of these people are died-in-the-wool freedom of speech folks. They cling to guns and Bibles, especially guns when their freedom of speech is threatened for real.
Michael
Michael,
You said, "Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech? He would never do that ...", followed closely by, "He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him."
But "propaganda" is speech, so the right to free speech implies the right to free propaganda or, more precisely, the right the freely engage in propagandizing without any interference from government or anyone else. So, to say that Trump is "negotiating the level of propaganda" is to admit that he is negotiating freedom of speech. There is no essential difference.
When George W. Bush was president, he was compared to Hitler. During Obama's presidency, he has also been compared to Hitler. If Trump becomes president, it is likely that he will also be compared to Hitler. If he is, what will he do? Will he threaten to sue those who compare him to Hitler? If they continue the comparisons, will he actually sue? Will the courts have the guts to stand up to the bombastic president? I wouldn't count on it.
Bush was exceptionally mild. As far as I know, he never did anything to try to silence his critics. Obama, of course, has been different. People who have criticized him have been subjected to IRS audits and investigations by the FBI and BATF. Some of us don't like that. Obama has turned this country into a banana republic. This election should be about reclaiming Constitutional government in America, not continuing down the road of lawless rule.
This isn't about ideological purity. Of course I have my favorite candidate, but I'd be willing to support one of the other candidates as well, within certain bounds. For example, I would never support Jeb! because he also fails the free speech test, believe it or not.
At one time, I also considered supporting Trump, but as things have congealed, certain problems with his behavior and demeanor have really started to bother me. It didn't bother me when he threatened to run a third party campaign, because a person's support for a particular political party is negotiable. Trump can't treat everything like a business deal. Government and business are fundamentally different. That's something a lot of business people and their supporters don't seem to get. Maybe it's not surprising then that a lot of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are left wing Utopians. They understand how to run a business, but not a country.
Darrell
-
1 minute ago, Selene said:
Darrell, are you familiar with Mark Levin's argument that we are living in a post Constitutional America?
A...
Absolutely, but the goal should be to return to Constitutional government, not stray further from it. If we are living in a post Constitutional time, then politics may soon be irrelevant. Our leaders will be chosen by force, rather than by vote.
Darrell
-
52 minutes ago, Selene said:
Darrell:
Again, there seems to be an explosion in the use of false dichotomies loose in the language.
He is either a joker, or, serious...
Every President jokes Darrell.
You see no middle ground with a man who has produced great works.
Selene,
When I say Trump may be a joker, I mean a fundamentally unserious person. Sure, Reagan told jokes, but it was always clear when he was joking.
Actually, I don't think Trump is a joker. That's why I take his threat seriously. He may just be using it as a negotiating tactic, but that doesn't matter. Presidents don't negotiate with news media by threatening our fundamental rights or their businesses. It's uncivilized.
Trump has certainly accomplished a lot. So has Mark Zuckerberg, but that doesn't mean I'd want him to be president.
Darrell
-
35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Darrell,
Ha!
No, Trump isn't an enemy of free speech. If he tried to curtail the First Amendment for real, Sarah Palin would slap him so hard his head would spin. And he would take it.
Believe it or not, he has huge affection and respect for her.
This statement is a form of negotiation he uses called the bombastic offer. (See The Art of the Deal.) He makes an outlandish statement, then after the outrage and fuss explode, he backs up to where he wanted to be in the first place, talking funny to disguise the retreat, and the other side thinks it won something. In most of these outrage cases, if he tried to get what he wanted up front without doing this, the other side would never let him have it. This way they do and congratulate themselves for standing up to Trump.
Gotcha people hate this technique because their schtick is premised on a shaming tactic of carving out the statements of their targets in stone, then slamming one statement against a later one as they yell in outrage and righteous indignation. With Trump, they know they're being played and they still can't help themselves, bless their hearts--they're like gambling addicts at a slot machine.
Trump wants NYT and WSJ to back off the anti-Trump propaganda a bit. Not too much. Just the blatant lies. He is planting a doubt in their minds (i.e. Can you imagine if this guy actually became president and did that? He would shut us down, at the very least think of all those legal bills...) so they will start criticising him with correct journalistic standards to be on the safe side.
Once they do that, I seriously doubt you will see him bring it up anymore. I can see this one from a mile away.
You might as well get used to this technique. Trump has been doing nothing but that since last June and, from here on out, you're going to see it a lot more.
The trick to not feeling that fear in the pit of your stomach is to look at what he says when he gets outlandish and what he does, then compare them on a timeline. The technique will jump off the page at you over and over.
Michael
Michael,
The problem is that freedom of speech is not negotiable. Freedom of speech means the right to attack people that you disagree with politically. Has the WSJ been telling lies? Or do they simply disagree with Trump? There is a very high standard of proof required to prove libel against a political candidate or other public person for a reason, so that public people can't do exactly what Trump is doing, engaging in intimidation tactics.
Would Trump actually change the libel laws? Doesn't matter. A threat to change the libel laws is a form of intimidation. Would Trump actually sue? Doesn't matter. A threat to sue is an intimidation tactic.
I understand that threats and intimidation are important tactics in raw, naked, power politics. That's the way it has been done since the beginning of time and that is the kind of tactics tin horn dictators around the world still engage in. The purpose of civilized society is to put an end to that. We expect our politicians to act more like a person applying for a job. We expect them to act in earnest and attempt to gain our trust by explaining what they intend to do, not engage in threats and intimidation.
Threats and intimidation may be part of the business world. I wouldn't be surprised if one company threatened to sue another just to gain some business advantage. It's a bit of law-of-the-jungle type mentality. However, it is fundamentally illegitimate. Businesses should no more have to worry about being sued for frivolous reasons than anyone else. That they do, doesn't make it right. Threats and intimidation are illegitimate in business and especially in politics. It is not just a negotiating tactic. It is uncivilized behavior and it's potentially damaging to our form of government.
Darrell
-
18 minutes ago, Selene said:
Darrell:
We have been "updated" by the Great Borg...
It is an interesting issue, especially when you get to the current government searching for every administrative avenue to shut down free speech on the publicly licensed airwaves via the Federal Communications Commission.
This is typical Trump.
Do you believe that:
1) he is serious?
2) he has a solid path through the Congress and Senate to achieve that goal?
A...
Adam,
I don't know if Trump is serious, but I have nothing to go on but his word. He wasn't even really drawing applause for his approach, but perhaps it was a trial balloon for a talking point. At any rate, running for president is a serious business, so if he wasn't serious, then he is joker that shouldn't be president.
Whether Trump has a path to get new libel laws passed is sort of irrelevant. The Republic might survive Trump, but he has staked out a position in opposition to free speech.
The current administration has made rumblings about threatening free speech as well. I never voted for Obama and never would, but that doesn't mean I support a Republican version of Obama. The Republicans have much better candidates and should choose someone who will at least protect this one basic right.
Darrell
-
Donald Trump is an enemy of free speech. That, in an of itself, regardless of anything else, disqualifies him from being president. Freedom of speech is, in some sense, our most fundamental right. If we can't freely express political opinions, right or wrong, then this country is finished. And don't think the courts will stand up to him. Some might, initially, but courts are easy to intimidate.
Even if Trump can't get the laws changed, I would expect him to sue whomever he dislikes. If the Republicans pass his new libel laws, look for a wave election to put the Democrats back in power. Even if the Republicans oppose him, I wouldn't be surprised to see a wave election in reaction to Trump's policies. The party of an unpopular president always gets slaughtered, even if it's not their fault.
Trump could set the cause of liberty back decades. All that effort spent supporting libertarians or the Tea Party or constitutional conservatives will have been wasted because they'll all be swept from office and we'll have to start over again (if we even can).
Darrell
-
They separated men and women on two separate islands where they had to survive (and cooperate) for 6 weeks. The women did'nt do so well. The men built shelters, beds, hunting parties, fishing lines and had a surplus of food. About half of the women were taken off the island and came near starvation on several occasions. Still they made it but they had help.
Thanks. I had heard that story second hand, but it was one of the reasons I was confident I wasn't generalizing on the basis of a single story.
Darrell
-
Wolf,
Just to be clear, I'm not saying anything about the abilities of individuals though men are clearly stronger on average among other things. I'm talking about the ability of the two sexes to cooperate.
As to your list of scientists, only Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace stand out. I'll add another to the list: Margaret Hamilton was an early programmer and her team was responsible for writing the Apollo mission guidance software. But, that doesn't alter my basic point.
There have been numerous successful companies that were primarily or exclusively staffed by men. Most armies have been exclusively run by men. Nation states have been primarily governed by men.
Part of the success of men is clearly a result of the fact that men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women on average, but my point is that a huge part of their success is in their greater ability and willingness to cooperate. Women are able to fit into and even take charge of an organization that is staffed with a sufficient percentage of men, but most women seem incapable of putting aside their competitive nature long enough to make an organization successful on their own.
Darrell
-
Hi Greg,
I started to reply to your comment, but I decided, instead to start a completely new thread. My post is a response to your comment about the feminization of America.
Darrell
Alex Jones and Bullying by the Establishment
in Persuasion Techniques
Posted
Michael,
You're assuming the tech companies want to be regulated. Perhaps some of them do. If that's true, that is even more reason to oppose regulating them. We don't want a situation in which it is difficult or impossible to launch competing social media platforms because of the regulatory burden involved in doing so.
Darrell