Selene Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 It was a tough choice between here, or, humor... Quote “For this reason alone, Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another ‘Home Alone’ movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination,” Enten wrote. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-pundits-wrong-predictions-222789#ixzz47iIIzRxR 538's "expert's", Nate Silver and Enten, who had no clue. e.g., Quote “He's very far to the right on immigration, but he also wants socialized medicine,” Silver said, according to Business Insider’s account. “He wants to tax the rich, right? There’s an alternate reality in which he decided to run as a Democrat instead — he wouldn’t have to change his policy positions all that much." And you wonder how and why Mittens lost? Quote Former Mitt Romney adviser and noted Trump critic Stuart Stevens took to CNN on Oct. 5 to boldly predict that the candidate would begin to falter in the polls and drop out of the race before a single vote was cast in the Iowa caucuses.................. “I don’t think he’s going to be on the ballot by Feb. 1,” Stevens declared. You sure have your fingers on the pulse of America! Now Bernstein, not him, the unknown one, adamantly declared that: Quote While acknowledging that his past prediction that Trump would drop out at the first sign of trouble had not come to pass, Bernstein suggested “a slow fade leading to a weak finish in Iowa is possible.” “Or his rankings could stay capped at the 25 percent to 30 percent range, and he will lose once the further winnowing of the candidates produces one or two strong opponents,” he concluded. “In short, everything we know about how presidential nominations work says Trump isn’t going to be the nominee, or even come close.” Does this make you twice as wrong? This from the dead Grey Lady is one of my personal favorites... Quote “The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat tweeted Sept. 25. Jacob Weisberg from Slate, even as late as April 8th, was clueless to the objective reality that he refuses to see. Quote “Pundits who underestimated Trump’s potential last autumn have been hesitant to come out and state what has now become apparent: He is probably not going to be the Republican nominee after all,” Jacob Weisberg wrote for Slate on April 8, three days after Cruz earned a temporary reprieve by trouncing Trump in Wisconsin. He ticked through a series of Trump’s recent woes, including Corey Lewandowski being charged with battery for manhandling Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, his remark that there should be punishment for women who have abortions (though Weisberg did not note that was in the context of the procedure being banned), as well as his refusal to take the use of nuclear weapons off the table in either Europe or the Middle East. So, has any actual reporter gone to the other 16, or, 17 candidates [counted Gilmore] who proudly took the pledge that night and asked them to confirm their support? Guess they must be in a dark dank corner of the OL SAFE ROOM! A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 This is funny. I suspect it is going to take awhile for many to get used to the fact that the election is now essentially a binary choice. Even those disgusted by Trump are going to have shake their etch a sketch a few times and see which of the two choices makes sense. Not which is ideal, but which makes the most sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dldelancey Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 When was the last time there was an ideal choice in a presidential election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 . Adam, again, can't you refrain from putting political threads in the metaphysics sector? It would really be nice. We get that you and many others here are mainly wrapped up in the political topics. Humor is no cover of the hegemony. Please. Please. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 On 5/4/2016 at 1:57 PM, Selene said: Jacob Weisberg from Slate, even as late as April 8th, was clueless to the objective reality that he refuses to see. 5 hours ago, Guyau said: Adam, again, can't you refrain from putting political threads in the metaphysics sector? It would really be nice. We get that you and many others here are mainly wrapped up in the political topics. Humor is no cover of the hegemony. Please. Please. Please. What's the matter, Stephen, don't you realize that Adam's post was all about metaphysics, viz., about "the objective reality" that Weisberg refuses to see, and that so many of Tromp's opponents refuse to see? Adam was merely trying to remind us (or perhaps taking perverse advantage of our belief) that politics has its roots in metaphysics - except that I don't think that he or a single one of the other people using every stray pretext to rub in the ascendancy of the Tromp Godhead cares the slightest about the connection of politics to anything more fundamental than a desire for power and revenge against whoever has wronged them. Yes, this post/thread belongs either in the Stomping folder or (perhaps) in the Humous folder, not here. But when all other rules of civility and rationality seem to have been suspended "for the duration," should we be so surprised at this rather minor anomaly? Someday, perhaps, MSK will recover from his non compos mentis condition and start moderating OL in a more rational way. Until then, Stephen, deaf ears and (perhaps not-so-) silent smirks will greet your protests, I predict. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 37 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Someday, perhaps, MSK will recover from his non compos mentis condition and start moderating OL in a more rational way. Until then, Stephen, deaf ears and (perhaps not-so-) silent smirks will greet your protests, I predict. Or you could always start your own forum where you can moderate to your heart's content! See how that works out for you. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Guyau said: Humor is no cover of the hegemony. Stephen, one coping approach for this nuttiness is to realize that hegemony is often no cover of humor, either. Sometimes the absurd simply cannot be camouflaged. Some things are just laughably pathetic. Kind of noise, like flies buzzing around a dead or dying animal - or website, in the present case. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 13 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Stephen, one coping approach for this nuttiness is to realize that hegemony is often no cover of humor, either. Sometimes the absurd simply cannot be camouflaged. Some things are just laughably pathetic. Kind of noise, like flies buzzing around a dead or dying animal - or website, in the present case. REB Yeah, the snob approach. It's not working. It's actually helping Trump. Got anything else, Grampa? Anything not worn and cliched? Anything original and effective? Cruz didn't either, unfortunately, which is why he's gone. Couldn't think outside the tired old box. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 There it is again: bzzzzzz, bzzzzzz, bzzzzzz. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 3 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: What's the matter, Stephen, don't you realize that Adam's post was all about metaphysics, viz., about "the objective reality" that Weisberg refuses to see, and that so many of Tromp's opponents refuse to see? Adam was merely trying to remind us (or perhaps taking perverse advantage of our belief) that politics has its roots in metaphysics - except that I don't think that he or a single one of the other people using every stray pretext to rub in the ascendancy[sic] of the Tromp Godhead cares the slightest about the connection of politics to anything more fundamental than a desire for power and revenge against whoever has wronged them. Roger... You started this paragraph with so much insight and then you just reverted to your tape. Nice perception by the way. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Adam thinks objectivity is metaphysics, not epistemology. And anyway politics can provide examples for any subject we whim. And why not make all the threads about that anyway? Why not keep the face of the front page covered with nothing but political topics? Why not politicize everything? Isn't politics what is the real cash value of anything else anyway? Even with such saturation here, far and away most screen-reading in this political subculture is at Facebook now. The traffic and political conversation here is very small compared that place to which so many have disappeared and find satisfaction. To get a much wider readership of your political ideas, get yourself a FB page. I don't use my FB page for any politics, but lots of libertarian types do, and they are having a lot of communication with each other there in political topics. Honestly, if politics is your thing, you're limiting yourself to a puddle beside the pond by swimming only here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Selene said: You started this paragraph with so much insight and then you just reverted to your tape. Nice perception by the way. The tape you're referring to is actually a no-pest strip. Flies aren't difficult to perceive. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Flies aren't difficult to perceive. REB Another reason that this is in metaphysics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Bzzzzzzzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 7 hours ago, Guyau said: .Adam, again, can't you refrain from putting political threads in the metaphysics sector? It would really be nice. Seconded. Plus, I object to the absence of truth in advertising. This is no safe space, it may as well be merged into the Trump thread. Nowhere on OL is a safe space, except maybe the Corners, though even there, when posts are deleted, they get reproduced elsewhere, with an note objecting to what happened. Rather insulting to imply we Trump-detractors need a safe space, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 26 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said: Seconded. Plus, I object to the absence of truth in advertising. This is no safe space, it may as well be merged into the Trump thread. Nowhere on OL is a safe space, except maybe the Corners, though even there, when posts are deleted, they get reproduced elsewhere, with an note objecting to what happened. Rather insulting to imply we Trump-detractors need a safe space, eh? Not really. Additionally, I think that the "perception" of politics as too "dirty" to deal with is denying reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 9 hours ago, Guyau said: Adam, again, can't you refrain from putting political threads in the metaphysics sector? It would really be nice. We get that you and many others here are mainly wrapped up in the political topics. Humor is no cover of the hegemony. Please. Please. Please. Stephen, Thanks for noticing this. As to the rest of the discussion in the thread, come on, guys. 1. I just fixed this. I moved it to the Stumping in the Backyard section. 2. I've been gone all day so I didn't see it until now. Kat and my baby girl just got her master's degree in science (medical illustration) from the University of Illinois and today was graduation ceremony and festivities. I literally just got home and turned on the computer. 3. I might be wrong, but I don't think Adam put it originally in the Metaphysics section on purpose. Or to make a political statement on the nature of reality. I think he goofed and that's about all. 4. If anyone sees a thread totally out of place, just shoot me a note. I'll be glad to fix it. 5. Thematic organization is not easy to govern on a forum because anyone can open a thread. Often they open threads in the darnedest places. (Hell, a few have done so in the Garbage Pile of all places. ) It's like forum drift. People just do it. Sometimes a discussion of Plato ends up veering off into a discussion of the Rand-Branden affair or whatever. OL is an online forum. If it were a 100% moderated publication like, say, a print magazine, this stuff would be easy to keep in order, but then I would have no life. I learned this the hard way. I tried to fix it all at one time in the past and gave up. So, unfortunately, due to human nature and the nature of forum posting, this is one thing we need to treat with flexibility. And I think we all do a pretty damn good job, all things considered. Like I said, just shoot me a note when it gets out of hand... Thanks. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 8 hours ago, Guyau said: Adam thinks objectivity is metaphysics, not epistemology. And anyway politics can provide examples for any subject we whim. And why not make all the threads about that anyway? Why not keep the face of the front page covered with nothing but political topics? Why not politicize everything? Isn't politics what is the real cash value of anything else anyway? Even with such saturation here, far and away most screen-reading in this political subculture is at Facebook now. The traffic and political conversation here is very small compared that place to which so many have disappeared and find satisfaction. To get a much wider readership of your political ideas, get yourself a FB page. I don't use my FB page for any politics, but lots of libertarian types do, and they are having a lot of communication with each other there in political topics. Honestly, if politics is your thing, you're limiting yourself to a puddle beside the pond by swimming only here. Your assumption, Stephen, is that people posting politics everywhere are wanting to discuss politics everywhere. My suspicion is that they want to rub THEIR politics in people's faces everywhere. The latter is more fun to do when you have a fairly clear idea of whose faces you're rubbing your politics in - which would be in a fairly cloistered, inbred place like OL, rather than Facebook. Of course, if they're just innocently carried away with the fun of discussing politics under a rather far-removed heading such as metaphysics, it puzzles me why they aren't equally enthusiastic about discussing metaphysics, say, in the Donald Trump thread. Or, perhaps they would be, and I'm just selling them short. Perhaps we should experiment by throwing in some racy comments on Primacy of Consciousness or the materialist-idealist dichotomy in the middle of a hot roll on Trump's ideology or lack of same. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Selene said: I think that the "perception" of politics as too "dirty" to deal with is denying reality. Sort of the flipside to the "perception" of principles as too "puristic" to deal with as denying reason. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Meanwhile the northern half of Alberta is burning and no one even noticed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now